Lords Sitting of 19 June 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Malcolm Everard MacLaren Pearson, Esquire, having been created Baron Pearson of Rannoch, of Bridge of Gaur in the District of Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Charteris of Amisfield and the Baroness Cox.
Baroness Flather
Mrs. Shreela Flather, having been created Baroness Flather, of Windsor and Maidenhead in the Royal County of Berkshire—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Faithfull and the Baroness Trumpington, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Pensioners: Independent Taxation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the benefits for pensioners from the introduction of independent taxation.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, of those elderly married couples who pay income tax, some 80 per cent. should be better off as a result of independent taxation.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am sure that many noble Lords will welcome it, myself included. Can he say approximately how many pensioners will benefit from the introduction of independent taxation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, nearly all the 1 million elderly married couples who gain from independent taxation will have some investment income. For those couples the introduction of independent taxation will provide a welcome benefit. Many will also be helped by the abolition from next year of composite rate tax.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many old-age pensioners have no income apart from the state pension and say what benefit they will receive in the future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall need to study the noble Lord's question with care. If I do not give a full reply perhaps I may write to him. The gain from independent taxation will affect 3¾ million individuals, 3 million wives, 1 million elderly married couples, 190,000 breadwinner wives and
728
40,000 men married to older women. Those about whom the noble Lord was concerned will also benefit from the abolition of composite rate tax.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can my noble friend give the number of those who will be worse off, even as regards those described in the last question? Is it a case of some are better off, none is worse off, and is that not an advantage?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, nobody will be worse off.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister please reply to the question that I addressed to him? How many old-age pensioners who have no income apart from their state pension will benefit? When do the Government propose to index those pensions as they originally promised?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the second part of the noble Lord's question does not directly relate to the main Question. But I understand that there are some 3 million pensioner couples and that 1·25 million pay income tax.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, so that we have it right, will the Minister accept that some Members on this side of the House are delighted by what was said?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I am sure are many of your Lordships.

Mailing Preference Service
3.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage and publicise arrangements made to enable citizens to have their names and addresses removed from lists used for sending unsolicited and unwanted mail.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government recognise the value of the Mailing Preference Service and alert individuals who complain about unsolicited mail to its existence. Advertising and promoting this scheme to consumers is a matter for the industry and I understand that it has plans for an additional promotion.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. The Mailing Preference Service has as one of its sponsors the Royal Mail. As it makes tolerable the multiple posting of junk mail, should its existence not be more widely known so that people can be spared such mail if that is their wish?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree that if people do not wish to receive such mail they should be spared from doing so. However, the fact is that many people like to receive junk mail. It is important that

729
those who wish can be deleted from the list. By sponsoring and supporting the service, and in insisting that most of the bulk mail users subscribe to it, the Post Office is contributing to that end.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on the assumption that people do not like receiving duplication and triplication of junk mail, can my noble friend say whether anything has been done to try to stop that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the present arrangements are, as my noble friend may be aware, that people who do not wish to receive junk mail of a particular kind can contact the Mailing Preference Service and have that mail stopped and their names deleted from the relevant lists. It is rather more difficult to stop multiple mailings of the same item, which I believe is what my noble friend had in mind. However, that is an important point which I shall draw to the authority's attention.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the poll tax demands be added to that list?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not junk mail.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not this constant deluge of "bumf" an intrusion on privacy, luring people to spend on unwanted goods for prizes which are rarely won? Should not that be stopped? Should not people be prevented from releasing mailing lists so that many of those who do not want the mail, as distinct from those whom the Minister says enjoy it, will be released from that constant deluge of unwanted mail?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that such activity should be stopped as a matter of principle. Firms are entitled to seek to bring their goods to the attention of customers by the use of the mail, if that is how they wish to do it. Equally, people who find it disagreeable should be entitled to say so and be protected from it. As a matter of principle, I do not agree that the practice should be stopped.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister expect a reduction in the amount of junk mail following the very unwelcome news in today's newspapers that postal charges are to be substantially increased?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, most of the mail which we are discussing arising from this Question is posted under the benefit of contract cost arrangements. Therefore, that is a slightly different matter. However, as the noble Lord says, there has been a recent announcement which is a matter for the Post Office.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House whether the arrangements for limiting unwanted mailing extends to mail sent over "fax" machines?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. There was a Question on that matter a few months ago. That is
730
a different matter governed by different codes of practice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that a code of practice operates among banks so that they cannot pass on information gained through the banking system for the purposes of promoting other services without the permission of the person to whom the mail is to be sent? Is there not a case for extending that code of practice to others who participate in the business so that anybody who is liable to receive direct mail may be asked before they receive it whether or not they wish to do so?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is going rather farther than is intended by the present arrangements. With regard to banks in particular, it is important that those kinds of selling methods are not used to induce young people to take on more credit than they should use.
Lord Parry: My Lords, would it not be reasonably simple for the Government to publish the addresses and names of the chairmen of the generating companies so that we could all return our junk mail directly to them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, numerous companies are involved. Some are very small and some are larger. Therefore, I am not sure that that would be practical. However, I believe that the present arrangements by which people can, if they wish, have their names deleted from the lists is the best way to proceed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that among the approaches now being received by the mailing service are requests for more direct mail; for example, from people in rural areas for direct mail catalogues? Therefore, in several ways the service can be of benefit to the public.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend has underlined the point which I made a few moments ago. It is not the case that all this mail is necessarily bad. For some it is very good, particularly those living in remote areas receiving the sort of mail to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before we finish this Question, can the noble Lord look again at his statement that he is satisfied with the present arrangements? Is he not aware that many people are vexatiously bothered by this mail? Is he not further aware that it is very difficult to get your name removed from the list because of misspellings, misdirections and many other matters? Can the noble Lord look again at this problem?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that it is as difficult as the noble Lord suggests to have one's name removed from the list. One merely has to fill in a form. If the noble Lord would like one, I shall send one to him.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, some of us find this question and answer session quite extraordinary. After all, there is such a thing as a waste-paper basket.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, can we be assured that the contract-arranged charges are in relation to the ordinary rate of charges so that the bulk mail is not being subsidised by those who pay the ordinary rate?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance which the noble Lord seeks. The contract rates are a confidential commercial matter between customers and the Post Office.

"Action on Dogs": Response
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What responses they have received to the consultation paper Action on Dogs issued in August 1989.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, we received 334 responses to the paper from the 462 local authorities and other organisations to whom it was sent. Respondents broadly agreed with our proposals.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Can he say whether, among the answers from the local authorities, there was any indication of their need for extra resources to meet the Government's requirements published last year? Are the Government aware of the need and do they intend to make any special arrangements for resourcing?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness that in certain replies mention was made of resourcing. However, as the noble Baroness is aware, those matters are dealt with when the situation is reviewed for the SSA.

EC Industry Council: UK Attendance
3.11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not attend the most recent European Community Industry Council in Brussels.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, although it is usual for a Minister from the DTI to attend meetings of the Industry Council, on this occasion, the business was both uncontroversial and routine, and attendance by a Minister was not necessary. The UK seat was therefore taken by the UK permanent representative to the Community, Sir David Hannay, supported by senior DTI officials.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, while one has a very high regard for the ability of Sir David Hannay, why was it that 10 other member states took a view contrary to that of the United Kingdom Government and were represented by Ministers? Were not the issues affecting the steel industry, small and medium sized enterprises, research and development, and shipbuilding, of sufficient importance for a Minister from this Government to participate in the meeting? Does the Minister share my view that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was being wholly consistent? After all, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment he did not attend a single Environment Council meeting.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot answer for the Ministers of other countries; I can only answer for the Ministers of the United Kingdom. We took the view that the matters were not of sufficient importance to justify the attendance of a Minister. No decisions were taken. The topics to which the noble Lord referred were discussed but only on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission. I am certain that Sir David Hannay was more than adequately qualified to undertake the task on that day.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not grossly unfair to pick out one engagement in respect of one Minister in complete ignorance of all the other items of business which the heavy load carried by Ministers today involves? Will my noble friend make clear that his right honourable friend has been carrying a considerable burden and should be free to choose which engagement it is most urgent for him to fulfil?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Equally, it would have been possible for a junior Minister to attend. I should have been happy to attend myself, but it simply was not worth the bother.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is completely dodging the column? It may be that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had more important things to attend to; one could understand that. However, we are not advised what part of the discussions were considered so unimportant that a Minister of our Government need not attend, although Ministers of the other 10 states chose to be there. What were the specific aspects of the agenda—or did it apply to all of them—that were considered too unimportant for a British Minister to be in attendance?
Lord Trefgarne: All of them, my Lords!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister not being a little cavalier in his response to the Question, even a little frivolous? Was not the meeting one that other member states of the Community considered important? Does the Secretary of State, who has many burdens—indeed some of them may appear next week—have a rating which he uses to judge whether or not a particular meeting is important? How do Ministers decide, other than on a purely rhetorical basis?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, decisions are taken according to the merits of each specific occasion. This occasion, like all the others, was carefully considered and the decision taken—with which I wholly agree—that the attendance of a Minister was not necessary. No decisions of any kind were taken at the meeting.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise the question for what it is? It is merely a continuation of the unsavoury personal attack upon a particular Minister which has been going on for some considerable time.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, whether or not that is in the minds of noble Lords opposite I cannot say. I recognise that noble Lords opposite, like all noble Lords, are anxious that the United Kingdom should be represented when the occasion demands it. This was not such an occasion.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the view expressed in this House that one must not be too unkind to Secretaries of State?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, would that Ministers of State were included.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister said that there was nothing controversial taking place at the meeting. Will that be the criteria for Ministers attending meetings?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the criteria by which Ministers decide whether or not to attend meetings depends on the topics discussed, whether decisions are to be taken and matters of that kind. Each case is considered on its merits.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is not the noble Minister's absence from the meeting entirely consistent with the views he expressed regarding the European Community in his Bruges speech?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord referred to me; I have not made a Bruges speech.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord to whom I referred was the Secretary of State.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise. I do not think the two are in any way connected. The speech to which the noble Lord refers and about which he questioned me the other day was an extremely important and very worthwhile one.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he is completely in error when he says that every Member on this side of the House was unhappy that the Minister did not attend the meeting? Is he aware that there is at least one Member on this side of the House who would prefer that Ministers did not attend any meetings of the EC at all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I note the view of the noble Lord. I am happy that there is now only one noble Lord who thinks that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on reflection will not the Minister consider that it is intolerably arrogant to state to this House that the agenda for the meeting was not worth the bother of a Minister of Her Majesty's Government attending when 10 other Ministers of the allied states considered that it was worth the bother and that there was important business to conduct?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is not the case at all. Different matters affect different nations in different ways. The United Kingdom did not consider it necessary for a Minister to attend. We considered our interests to be more than adequately represented by Sir David Hannay.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, apart from being frivolous, does the Minister's reply not cause a very great disservice to the interests of this country and the Community? It is also wholly inconsistent with a reply given a few days before the Industry Council by Mr. Douglas Hogg who said,
"The next meeting of the Industry Council, at which I will be representing the United Kingdom, will be held on 28th May. The provisional agenda proposes discussion on steel, shipbuilding, semi-conductors, small and medium-sized enterprises, and audio-visual matters".
What changed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, a number of changes took place after that Answer was given. As the noble Lord said, it was a draft agenda that my honourable friend referred to. The nature of the discussion became apparent only after that was produced.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember a passage in the memoirs of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in which he referred to a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1975? The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, noted that the Minister so enjoyed attending meetings that he never had any time for real work.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is indeed the case that Ministers nowadays have to attend a great many meetings. There is therefore sometimes a balance to be made. On this occasion we judged that the balance lay in not attending.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the Consumer Guarantees Bill will be taken.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Tne CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:—
("Presumption against pollution
.—(1) This Part shall have effect for the purpose of preventing or reducing pollution of the environment.
(2) Any person who carries on a process which is, by means of regulations made under section 2 below, a prescribed process, shall prevent the occurrence of pollution from that process except to the extent that such pollution is made the subject of an authorisation issued by the enforcing authority and in accordance with conditions attached to such an authorisation under subsection (3) and section 7 below.
(3) No enforcing authority shall issue an authorisation under this Part unless it is satisfied that—

(a) techniques exist to prevent the release of polluting substances into the environment from the process concerned, and the applicant has demonstrated that he has or is making use of them to secure such prevention; or

(b) where no such techniques to prevent pollution as are referred to in paragraph (a) above exist, or where they are available only at unreasonable levels of cost, that techniques exist to reduce the release of polluting substances into the environment and the applicant has demonstrated that he has used or is using them to the fullest extent practicable; or

(c) where no such techniques for the reduction of pollution as are referred to in paragraph (b) above are available at other than unreasonable levels of cost, that adequate arrangements have been agreed with the enforcing authority for the progressive reduction of pollution over such period as the enforcing authority may determine.

(4) In any case where the enforcing authority is not satisfied that reductions have not been achieved under subsection 3(c) above, the enforcing authority may specify a date by which the process concerned shall cease.
(5) For the purposes of this Part, the determination of "unreasonable cost" in relation to any process shall be made by the enforcing authority, subject to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State".
The noble Lords said: With the usual necessary pause to allow the Committee to assume the membership which noble Lords consider appropriate, I rise to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Those noble Lords who were present at the very lengthy Second Reading—in fact, the lengthiest Second Reading which has taken place on a Friday for some time—will recall that noble Lords on all sides of the House, not just from these Benches, expressed admiration for the motivation behind the Bill and support for the general objectives expressed in the Bill but considerable disquiet about the means available to the Government, to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and to the local authorities—which after all are the environmental protection agency and have been for many
736
years—about the difficulty of making the Bill effective to cover the wide range of sources of pollution and potential pollution which afflict our country.
In all their discussions of environmental pollution the Government pay a great deal of attention to the phrase which has now become a sort of chant—the polluter pays principle. In moving this amendment I suggest that there are many ways in which what appears to be the simplicity of the polluter pays principle is inadequate for the problems that face us and that the provisions of this new clause will go a considerable way—by no means the whole way, because there are many other amendments to be considered—towards dealing with the inadequacy of that definition and putting forward a more positive and, I believe, more effective approach to the issue of pollution control.
First, the problem with the polluter pays principle, if it is interpreted in the wrong way and too narrowly, is that it does not in itself reduce pollution but simply enables some people, but not all people, to afford to continue with pollution. For example, in the United States it enables those who can afford to trade for exemption simply to treat the right to pollute as a business overhead rather than as an incentive to the reduction of pollution.
Secondly, there is always the temptation when a principle is stated as baldly as the polluter pays principle has been—indeed, as ambiguously as it is sometimes stated—that it will lead not to a progressive improvement in standards of pollution control but rather to the achievement, but no more, of minimum standards of pollution control as laid down in legislation or regulations.
Thirdly, there is the problem that what is described in the Bill as "integrated pollution control" is in fact very far from being integrated pollution control. What the Bill does is to prescribe approximately 3,500 industrial processes which are undertaken according to the terms of the Bill by larger industrial organisations and companies that may be thought to be those who are engendering pollution. It deals with those prescribed processes, both a limited number of processes and a limited number of polluters.
All the processes and activities which fall outside the prescribed process definition are not covered by the principal provisions of Part I of the Bill, which deals with integrated pollution control. To that extent, therefore, the reality of the Bill is very far from the way in which it tends to be introduced by more incautious and enthusiastic supporters of the Government and those perhaps with less knowledge of the detail of the legislation who seek to persuade the people of this country that the Government are taking major steps towards effective control over the whole range of pollution which faces us.
Fourthly, the definition of what pollution is acceptable is profoundly defective because the standard introduced in the Bill, which is used in many cases and to which we shall return on later amendments, is the standard of the best available technology not involving excessive cost. We shall see as we go through this Bill that almost every single

737
word in that definition can be subject to misinterpretation and, most important, to misinterpretation on the side of doing as little as possible rather than providing effective pollution control.
The conclusion that we therefore come to from all these limitations on the very high and noble principles with which the Bill has been introduced and in which the Bill is described is that we need to have something more effective. We need to have a presumption against pollution. That presumption against pollution is not a new idea; it is an idea that has been accepted on many occasions when we have been debating the wider issues of global pollution. In the course of this Session we have had a number of very remarkable debates, usually on the reports of Select Committees of your Lordships' House which have referred to matters such as global warming, the ozone layer, the problems of chlorofluorocarbons and to many of the other global issues of pollution.
The constant refrain heard from all sides of this Chamber—indeed, on occasion it has been reflected not just from the Government Benches but from the Government Front Bench—has been that we cannot afford to have it proved that something is causing dangerous pollution before we take any action. In other words, we must adopt a presumption against pollution and we must make it necessary for those who wish to pollute, who are in danger of polluting or who find themselves, as they think, unable to avoid polluting to contract out of the preventive arrangements rather than that there should be an obligation on the Government, the inspectorate and local authorities to contract them into the controls.
For that reason we take the view, particularly in subsection (3) of the new clause, that there should be a progressive means of dealing with the pollution problem. We say in subsection (3),
"No enforcing authority shall issue an authorisation … unless it is satisfied that … techniques exist to prevent the release of polluting substances",
and that they are actually being used. Then as a fallback we say that if there are no such techniques to prevent pollution, or where those techniques are available only at unreasonable levels of cost, the provision which prescribes the need to reduce the release of polluting substances comes into play. The applicant, in order to be allowed to continue with the pollution, has to demonstrate that he has used or is using them to the fullest extent practicable.
It if is not possible to devise techniques for the reduction of pollution as set out in subsection (3)(b)—and this is perhaps the third best alternative—subsection (3)(c) provides,
"that adequate arrangements have been agreed with the enforcing authority for the progressive reduction of pollution over such period as the enforcing authority may determine".
In other words, it should not be enough for the polluter to say, "I cannot get rid of this pollution except at excessive cost". It should not be enough for him to have the fallback position of being able to say, "I cannot reduce the pollution except at excessive cost". He has to reach an agreement with the authorities that, even if there is no way of dealing
738
with the problem now, there will be a way of doing so within a finite time. In subsection (4) we say:
"In any case where the enforcing authority is not satisfied",
with the reductions over a period of time,
"under subsection (3)(c) above, the enforcing authority may specify a date by which the process concerned shall cease".
I do not think it will be said that that is an overpowering exercise of governmental authority. The requirement that government shall demand that pollution shall be put an end to only follows at the end of a very significant process of negotiation, technical discussion and discussion about the economic feasibility of reducing pollution between the enforcement authority and the polluter or putative polluter.
I think that Members of the Committee who are particularly involved in business on a large scale will welcome that process. They would not wish a rigid set of standards to be imposed, for there to be no opportunity for debate, discussion and negotiation, and for there to be a deadline imposed without further consultation. When considering the EC deadlines some Members of the Committee felt that it was unreasonable for those deadlines for the improvement of the quality of our drinking water, for example, to be imposed without negotiation directly with those who are responsible for the maintenance of standards of drinking water. I do not think that at the time I agreed with that argument, but I appreciate how the necessity for full consultation and negotiation can be argued in favour of abatement of the more rigid and expensive requirements.
That is not what this clause does. It establishes a principle which allows negotiations to take place and which encourages them to take place. This new clause pays due respect to economic necessity and yet in the end it suggests a process for establishing a presumption against pollution which, in our view, is going to be significantly more effective than the provisions so far laid down in this Bill. In this amendment we are giving effect to the Government's wishes rather than to the way in which the Bill has been drafted. I beg to move
3.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: I support this amendment to which my name is attached. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given a very good description of the amendment and of its aims. Ultimately, the idea that the polluter pays—an expression which I and many others have bandied about—is one which must be interpreted. It cannot refer just to economic and financial costs because there are more than those costs directly involved. There must be a point at which we say, "You have got to stop what you are doing". Some measures have to be adopted to make sure that the right technical steps are taken so that the situation does not continue.
I recommend that the Committee considers this amendment very clearly as the kind of action that we must take concerning the whole issue of the environment. We should take steps towards creating cleaner industrial processes. We should involve the Government in the creation of such processes.
Lord Hesketh: I am pleased that we can begin our Committee proceedings on this Bill in complete agreement in that this part of the Bill should be a waste minimisation measure. That is the purpose of the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is also a major purpose of Clause 7 of the Bill. Both the noble Lord and I wish to see available techniques used to prevent pollution; both the noble Lord and I wish to require the applicant to show that he will make use of such techniques to prevent or reduce pollution; both the noble Lord and I agree that guidance on costs related to techniques will be necessary; and both the noble Lord and I agree that in some cases the enforcing authority may revoke an authorisation.
I am sure that the Committee will be delighted at this outbreak of mutual understanding. But I have one minor and one major criticism to make of the new clause. First, there is an implication in subsection (2) that an authorisation is a licence to pollute. It states that pollution shall be prevented except to the extent that it is made the subject of an authorisation. That, to my mind, is the wrong way of looking at an authorisation. I prefer the Bill's structure whereby the authorisation sets out the requirements to which an operator must adhere. Those requirements may set out specific requirements to prevent or minimise pollution.
The noble Lord and I are agreed that the first aim should be to prevent pollution. If that is not practical, we recognise that a second stage must follow. The noble Lord suggests in subsection (3) of the new clause that the reduction of pollution is the answer. But the Bill, in Clause 7, calls for the minimisation of the most polluting substances. It additionally requires all releases of substances to be rendered harmless. Clause 7 of the Bill also includes the first objective of the best practicable environmental option, first recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, so that pollution of the environment as a whole is also minimised. I am sure the Committee will agree that if this part of the Bill should concern itself with waste minimisation, Clause 7 is a most satisfactory model.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his siren song at the start of the debate on this amendment mentioned a number of points, two of which I shall quickly pass over. He referred to 3,000 to 3,500 prescribed places that will be covered by IPC.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said "processes".
Lord Hesketh: I apologise. The fact is that the number is about 5,000. It is also important to remember that in Part I of the Bill there is a very great number of further prescribed processes that are covered by local authorities' air control. They may not be as great but in certain areas many consider them to be important. The noble Lord also made reference to the trade in permits in the United States of America. That may be the case there but it will certainly not be the case here. It is for those reasons that I feel that, though the noble Lord's amendment is admirable, it is resistible.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Am I not correct in thinking that in regard to the 3,000 or 4,000 cases my noble friend Lord McIntosh was referring to major processes as distinct from the point made by the Minister? The main question I put to the noble Lord in this brief intervention is this: have not the Government elected to rely on deterrents rather than incentives? One wonders what happened to the recommendations of Professor Pearce in relation to the Government's approach. Not so very long ago we were led to suppose that incentives to provide cleaner production which was environmentally friendly was something that the Government were likely to adhere to in the future. What has happened to that approach?
Turning to the penalties themselves, my anxiety is that it is extremely improbable that the courts will impose the maximum penalties referred to in the Bill. Even if they do, I think that imprisonment is extremely unlikely, For example, if a major enterprise of the size of ICI comes before the courts, as has happened in the past, it is unlikely that the courts will impose tremendously draconian penalties—at least, draconian in the terms of the size of the enterprise. It is extremely unlikely that the directors or members of the board will be subject to imprisonment. Although I do not oppose that aspect being in the Bill, I feel that it is a little illusory if we really think of it as creating an effective deterrent in any event.
We know from the powers possessed by the courts at the present time that the penalties imposed in the past were far less than draconian. Indeed, there is an unevenness about penalties imposed for environmental offences. I suppose it might be said that that is part of the way in which we administer justice in this country because there are no guidelines that would have the effect of creating an evenness of penalty—there is a case for arguing that—but I wonder whether the Government have abandoned the far more positive approach which we were led to expect might occur when Professor Pearce intervened on this scene as the adviser to the Secretary of State not so very long ago. It is to that point that I ask the Minister to direct his reply.
Lord Hesketh: It is true to say that if the Government had produced a Bill which relied entirely on incentives I would be receiving a great weight and torrent of abuse at this Dispatch Box. On matters of such importance as pollution, deterrence has to have its role to play. Incentives may well develop in the future. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is well aware, a White Paper on the environment is at this moment under consideration.
With regard to the courts, fines will be increased to the extent that the magistrates' courts will now be able to fine up to £20,000. The noble Lord raised the aspect of whether or not a conviction might result in imprisonment. If the power is there, that will be a decision and judgment for the courts themselves, which is entirely right and proper.
Lord Renton: The question we have to consider in relation to limiting polluting processes is whether

741
the product of the process is in the public interest and is necessary. There are probably some polluting processes which could and should be eliminated altogether at the first opportunity. Nothing in the noble Lord's amendment deals with that point.
I have been looking at Clauses 3 and 7, to which my noble friend the Minister referred. At first sight the word "objectives" might seem to cover the point which I have tried to make. But in Clause 7 the word "objectives" is used rather differently. It is used in relation to the method by which the pollution will be limited or the process controlled rather than in relation to the outcome and product of the process. Subject to anything that my noble friend may say, it seems at first sight that the amendment does not deal with this point. I would be happy to learn that the Bill does so.
Lord Hesketh: Products are in a sense slightly different from processes. I can best illustrate that to my noble friend by giving the example of the Montreal Convention on CFCs. The objective of the Montreal Convention in the longer term is the abolition of CFCs—in other words, the complete removal from our planet of an objectionable material. The Government take the view—and this can also be seen in our proposals for the future levels of emissions from power stations—that materials which are as objectionable as my noble friend Lord Renton suggests should be removed from the planet and not just from this country; otherwise we would not achieve the objective.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As always, the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was very helpful. He has elicited an answer from the Minister which makes it clear that the Government do not propose to follow the line proposed in my amendment. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to subsection (4) of the amendment which states that after a reasonable process of negotiation the enforcing authority,
"may specify a date by which the process concerned shall cease".
There is a distinction there, not so much between incentives and deterrents but between two different forms of deterrent. Everyone agrees that there should be incentives to reduce or eliminate pollution—that is common ground—but there are two kinds of deterrents, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis made clear. The first is to fine those who create pollution. That runs the risk, as I said at the outset, of allowing pollution to become a business overhead. The fine will be accepted as part of the cost of running the operation, whether or not the operation is essential—a point to which we shall come in later amendments. But the effect of the fine will be that, for those who can afford to pay it, pollution will not cease.
The other form of deterrent is that proposed in our amendment. It is the deterrent of requiring that the process shall cease. Amendment No. 128, to which I should have referred as it is grouped with Amendment No. 1, provides that contravention of the new clause shall be an offence. I apologise to the
742
Committee for not referring to it. In Amendment No. 128 we have the second and necessary element of deterrence—the element which requires that pollution shall cease.
In his response the Minister anticipated some later amendments. It is always a temptation when dealing with the first amendment to a complex Bill to bring forward all the arguments at the beginning of the discussion. I tried hard not to do so and I tried hard not to anticipate amendments which I and noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have put down for later debate. I tried to concentrate on one issue—the presumption against pollution.
It was interesting and worth while to have the statement from the Minister that this country will not—and presumably under the White Paper will not—move in the direction of traded permits to pollute. That is a considerable change. So far as I know, there was no indication that that was not part of future government policy. I am glad to have it confirmed by the Minister that it is not and will not be part of government policy.
The second part of the Minister's answer, in which he referred to Clause 7, does not hold water. It is not enough to say that a clause which deals with conditions of authorisation puts, as the Bill ought to do, the ball in the court of the polluter, the putative polluter or the potential polluter. Of course when matters are drawn to the notice of the authorities there will be authorisations. We are not proposing to take Clause 7 out of the Bill. But what is required is that major causes of pollution should not be, through defects in definition and through sloppy thinking—there is a good deal of sloppy thinking going around here—outwith the scope of the Bill. For that reason I believe that we must insist on attempting to put the presumption against pollution on the face of the Bill to ensure that it achieves the high objectives which we all have in mind for it.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I think that he would be wise in his own interest if he were to clarify his point. He referred to subsection (4) of the amendment and said that it means that a polluting process, the product of which is not needed by the public, shall no longer take place. Subsection (4) is based upon the assumption that a polluting process may by the procedure set out in the amendment be brought to an end eventually by specifying a date. However, the trouble is that the noble Lord has not dealt with the point that a polluting process that produces a product which it cannot be in the public interest to produce shall, nevertheless, be brought to an end at once. That is what ought to happen. Having listened to my noble friend and looked at the powers in the Bill, it seems to me that we were much more likely to achieve that objective without subsection (4) of the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord has, unusually, failed to recognise the thrust of the argument in the amendment. Although he is right in saying that subsection (4) deals with the case where a timetable has to be set for the cessation of pollution, because there has been no other way of doing this subsection (3)(c) in turn depends upon subsection

743
(3)(b), and that depends in turn upon subsection (3)(a). In other words, we have looked for immediate prevention. We are only going for a reduction when prevention has proved impossible, and we are only going for reduction over a period of time when immediate reduction has proved impossible. To that extent of course cessation by subsection (4) is a last resort, but there is already provision for the application of prevention in subsection (3)(a). That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. I think that that objective is in line with what the noble Lord seeks to achieve.
Baroness Nicol: I have but one small point to make. I apologise if I am wrong in this, but there appears to be a double negative in subsection (4) of the amendment. It says:
"In any case where the enforcing authority is not satisfied that reductions have not been achieved".
I wonder whether the wording was intended to read that way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The double negative is not in my draft. In fact I had not noticed it in the printed version of the amendment and I am most grateful to my noble friend for drawing our attention to that point. It was not contained in the original wording we set out for the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to intervene in the debate but, as the noble Lord has indicated that he will be pressing this amendment, I feel that I must do so. While listening to the discussion, I have been asking myself whether his amendment actually adds anything to the powers available to regulators which is not already there. I do not believe that it does, although I may be missing something. Clause 3 deals with the establishment of standards and objectives. If we take, for example, the case of the National Rivers Authority—of which noble Lords will know I am chairman—it is one of its duties over a period of time to establish objectives for river quality standards. Thereafter, having set those objectives, it has a duty to issue discharge consents in order that they may be achieved or to issue discharge consents—this would meet the point made in the noble Lord's amendment—in order to achieve reductions over a period of time.
I am not convinced by what I have heard so far that anything in the proposed amendment enables the National Rivers Authority and other regulators to do anything that they are not already empowered to do by the Bill as it stands.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am extremely grateful for the noble Lord's intervention because it enables me to say yes, the precautions which were taken when the Water Act was being considered last year achieve for the National Rivers Authority in its sphere of operation exactly what we are trying to achieve here. However, the problem is that other forms of pollution, especially air pollution with which Part I of the Bill is largely concerned, are not covered by the same provisions which regulate the pollution prevention activities of the National Rivers Authority. It is precisely because we want
744
similar provisions to apply to other forms of pollution that we have proposed this amendment. It does not in any way derogate from the responsibilities of the NRA.
Lord Crickhowell: I agree that there are powers specifically written into the Water Act regarding the establishment of standards and objectives. However, as I read the Bill, Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations, and not just regulations confined to water. It is true that the NRA will be able to write its conditions into the conditions issued to achieve the objectives set out here so far as concerns water. But what I am a little puzzled about—I ask this question out of a genuine sense of wanting to know what would be achieved by the noble Lord's objective—is why his objective cannot be achieved perfectly satisfactorily under the present wording of Clause 3.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is that Clause 3, like all other clauses in this part of the Bill, is subject to the preliminary provisions contained in Clause 1. The definitions of environment, harm, health, process and so on restrict and restrain the full application of Clauses 3 and 7 and many other admirable clauses.
Perhaps I may take one example and draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 1(5), which says:
"'Process' means any activities carried on in Great Britain, whether on premises or by means of mobile plant, which are capable of causing pollution of the environment".
"Prescribed process" is then defined in Clause 2. Clause 2 is defined by regulation. In his response to the first introduction to this amendment the Minister said that the number of processes which are expected to be prescribed is of the order of 5,000 rather than the 3,000 to 4,000 which I anticipated. I am delighted to have this increase, but I think that the noble Lord, and, indeed, all other noble Lords, will acknowledge that the prescription of approximately 5,000 processes for a restricted number of potential polluters is not the same as the very extensive powers which the National Rivers Authority has in order to deal with all the potential polluters of drinking water and of the rivers.
Lord Crickhowell: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but one of the matters of concern which arose while we were working out the relationship between the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution was the fact that the overwhelming majority of industrial processes are covered. Indeed, we calculate that probably over 80 per cent. are covered. Of course it is always open to the Secretary of State to add to that list. I remain as unconvinced as I was earlier about the need for the noble Lord's amendment in order to achieve the objectives which I think we both share.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clearly I am not going to convince the noble Lord. However, I say to him specifically that I have never doubted that the procedures which the National Rivers Authority will be using in order to fit its existing powers into the context of the Bill will be perfectly easy to achieve. I have never doubted the fact that there is no conflict

745
between the NRA's powers and those given under the provisions of the Bill. That was not in any way a part of my argument. My argument is that there are many factors outwith the sphere of the NRA's responsibility which are still inadequately covered by the Bill.
The Lord said that 80 per cent. of the major industrial processes are included in the list, and he is right in saying that there is the opportunity to add to that list. However, unless the presumption is that pollution has to be drawn to the attention of the authorities and authorised rather than that the authorities should have to seek it out, and unless the provision is that a deterrent is achieved by prohibition, as well as by a financial penalty, then the Bill's full objectives will not be achieved. It is on that basis that I seek the opinion of the Committee.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 139.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Northfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Parry, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Scanlon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt, L

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Zuckerman, L.

746

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Kimball, L.

Allerton, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Alport, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Annaly, L.

Kitchener, E.

Annan, L.

Knights, L.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Liverpool, E.

Balfour, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lovat, L.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Luke, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brain, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Melville, V.

Burton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nathan, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Cawley, L.

Norrie, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Quinton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Radnor, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Dulverton, L.

Rodney, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Effingham, E.

Seebohm, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Shannon, E.

Elles, B.

Sharples, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Foley, L.

Slim, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gainford, L.

Gibson, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strange, B.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Swinton, E.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Havers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hayter, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hood, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Howe, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:

747
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Environmental Protection Executive
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order transfer such of his functions under this Act as he considers appropriate, including any of the functions specified in subsection (3) below which are vested in him under this Act, to any body etablished in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order establish an Environmental Protection Executive with a regional structure corresponding in area to any regional authorities established in England, Scotland and Wales.
(3) The functions of any body established under this section may by order made by the Secretary of State include—

(a) the promotion of preventive measures against pollution, and for the promotion of clean technologies and the development of integrated pollution control generally;

(b) the prescription of processes falling within national control in accordance with the provisions of Part I of this Act;

(c) the issuing of advice as to best practice in the management of waste, including hazardous waste, in accordance with the provisions of Part II below;

(d) the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste;

(e) the monitoring of national standards as to pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance, litter and substances and organisms falling within Parts V and VI below;

(f) the promotion with local authorities of Environmental Impact Analysis in planning matters;

(g) the undertaking of long-term research on environmental and ecological matters;

(h) the promotion of public education as to environmental matters, where appropriate in liaison with local education authorities;

(i) the co-ordination of improvements to the environment in inner city areas, including the reclamation of urban land;

(j) the exercise on behalf of the Secretary of State of functions under sections 130 or 131 in relation to toxic waste;

(k) the monitoring of activities connected with dumping at sea as referred to in section 133 below;

(l) the provision of advice and recommendations as to financial assistance for environmental purposes in accordance with section 136 below; and

(m) the promotion of international co-operation on environmental measures and the dissemination of best practice.

(4) The Executive shall have such a membership as appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of organisations concerned with environmental, scientific and conservation matters, and of local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 2 which is also a new clause before Clause 1, we raise for the first time, but not I fear for the last, one of the major themes of our concern about the effectiveness of this laudable Bill; that is, whether we have the organisational structure fit to meet the demands which the public will increasingly make for an improved, pollution-free environment, and whether we have the relationship right between the organisational structure at central government level and local government level.
Nothing that I say should be taken as in any way a criticism of Her Majestry's Inspectorate of Pollution. It has never been my policy, in dealing with legislation in this House, to do anything other than attack the Government; never the Government's servants. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has had an extraordinarily difficult task over the years. It has dealt with increasing demands for a better environment, an increasing number of processes which are damaging to the environment,
748
and an inceasing number of circumstances in which higher standards are required. Yet there has been a failure to provide the resources to achieve its objectives.
We understand from government Statements and from the memorandum at the front of the Bill that it is proposed to strengthen further Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. We welcome that, but I do not think that it is enough to deal with the fundamental hole which exists in the Bill. There is lack of a single, central government body, not reporting to a single Secretary of State but responsible—as is the Health and Safety Executive—for advising government as a whole and for acting on behalf of government as a whole.
Members of the Committee who were present when the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, introduced his Environment Protection Bill, earlier in the Session will have heard the argument for a body analogous to the Health and Safety Executive effectively put forward. The noble Earl drafted an entire Bill. I give him credit for that; it is not something that I could have done. The functions of the Health and Safety Executive, which is not responsible to a single department of state, were applied to the process of pollution control. Unfortunately—and it was entirely his privilege—the noble Earl felt it right not to proceed with the Second Reading of his Bill. I have no doubt that if he were able to be here today he would take an active part in your Lordships' Committee. He still feels, I know, that the analogy of the Health and Safety Executive—a body independent of a single Ministry yet with the full range of functions necessary for environmental protection—should have been put forward in the Bill.
The second analogy that I would like to draw, having referred to the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, follows a suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who recently in your Lordships' House put forward the case for a national environmental waste standards council. The council would specifically have the responsibility of controlling the waste disposal activities of companies and would also have responsibility for recycling and the efficient disposal of waste. I understand that the noble Earl proposes to put down amendments for later consideration by the Committee. However, if he were present he would agree—and I have discussed the matter with him—that the amendments before the Committee are on similar lines.
What are the functions which a national environmental protection executive could undertake? In our amendment we have largely taken the functions from the Bill itself. The functions are those of monitoring, of environmental impact analysis, and of research. They are not specifically referred to in the Bill; they will have to be added afterwards. Subsection (3) of the new clause takes a number of the functions in Parts I, II, IV, V and VI which the Government recognise as being proper subjects for inclusion in the Bill.
We add the requirement that the environmental protection executive should be independent of a

749
single department; that it should have the responsibility for monitoring progress towards an improved environment; that it should have the central responsibility for environmental impact analysis; that it should have responsibility for research and education; and that it should have responsibility for ensuring international co-operation on environmental protection matters.
There is nothing more important than for us to recognise the close links between the need to improve the environment in this country, locally and nationally, and the need to improve it internationally. It is no longer possible to say—as it perhaps was a few years ago—that they are two separate issues to be dealt with in entirely separate ways. The two are closely linked. Our actions on transport policy and energy conservation as well as our policies on emissions from energy generation have a local and national impact. However, equally they have a global impact. It is necessary for those with the responsibility for local environmental protection to have regard to the international framework.
Amendment No. 3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has added his name and which I suggest should be taken with Amendment No. 2, deals with the other part of the protection which we believe to be necessary—that is, the role of local authorities. As has been said on many occasions, local authorities are the environmental protection agency in this country and have been for 150 years. There are many respects in which the Bill provides, very properly, for collaboration between Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the local environmental health officers. All that is entirely proper.
What is not clear is where the functions of one and the functions of another lie; what the division is between policy and a national plan for environmental protection and the day-to-day leg work—the local enforcement. There is no clear and concise definition of the role of local authorities in environmental protection, even though they are in existence as the most effective local environmental protection network in the country.
We say in the amendment that if these two bodies are to work and to co-ordinate effectively, if there is to be a national body with overall responsibility to all of government, covering the activities of all government departments, then it must work effectively with the local authorities. The local authorities must have an explicit area of responsibility which is properly defined and for which proper resources are available.
I do not wish to anticipate later amendments about the role of local authorities. I certainly do not wish to deal now with the issue of resources which will permeate our debates in Committee. I suggest to your Lordships that without this kind of framework it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the Bill's objectives. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not appear to realise that there is a basic contradiction between the terms of his
750
amendment and at any rate one of the observations that he made in moving it. He said, very properly, that on public issues of this kind his policy was not to attack outside bodies, organisations or people but to attack the Government. That seems to me wholly the right approach. I do not know whether the noble Lord has appreciated what would be the effect of carrying into law the amendment which he has just moved. The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State may by order transfer such of his functions … as he considers appropriate … to any body established in accordance with subsection (2) below".
It is a common experience that when functions have been transferred from a Minister to an outside body created by statute, the Minister is neither liable nor indeed able to answer questions about the working of that organisation. There is a certain analogy with the nationalised industries, in respect of which, as the Committee knows, our rules of procedure have recently been tightened up. As I read the amendment it seems clear to me that if the Secretary of State, perhaps for that very reason, were cunningly to transfer all his functions under this Bill—they are listed at great length in the amendment—to the environmental protection executive, that would largely rule out any parliamentary criticism or indeed any parliamentary control.
This is far too important a matter to be shunted out of Whitehall and therefore shunted out of the survey of Parliament. For that reason alone, apart from anything else, I find this amendment most objectionable. It would be ridiculous, in view of the public interest that there now rightly is in environmental matters, if Parliament were to push the whole matter off to an outside statutory body without any direct responsibility to Parliament for its actions. It is perfectly true that ultimately if such a body committed outrageous actions, the Secretary of State could either withdraw the functions he had conferred upon it or sack the individuals concerned. However, that is an extreme step which all Secretaries of State would be unwilling to take. Meanwhile we would have to face the fact that on this extremely important public issue both Houses of Parliament were virtually powerless. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will decide to back what he said in his speech rather than the amendment which he has moved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must respond to that immediately. That was a vintage intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is still in his place because what we are proposing here is exactly what occurred with the National Rivers Authority under the terms of the Water Act. The National Rivers Authority exercises functions assigned to it by the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as proposed in this amendment. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, object to the establishment of the National Rivers Authority on the grounds that he has just argued, which are that to assign the functions of the Secretary of State to a body which is not under his direct control and which performs functions which he specifies by order is somehow a derogation from democracy or from the rights of Parliament. The

751
noble Lord may be tempted to respond but I hope he will first let me finish my argument.
As I made clear in introducing the proposed new clause, apart from the case of the National Rivers Authority there is a clear analogy with the functions of the Health and Safety Executive which was established under the 1974 Act in much the same way. I cannot guarantee that every single word is identical, but certainly the concept of an analogous body to the Health and Safety Executive is the basis of this new clause. The concept of the establishment of an executive was argued in the case of the Health and Safety Executive—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, intervened on that occasion—and also when the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, moved his Environment Protection Bill earlier this Session. However, I was present on the latter occasion and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not intervene.
There is nothing new therefore about the establishment of an executive to which a Secretary of State may transfer his functions. In this case the words "Secretary of State" deliberately refer to more than one Secretary of State as we are deliberately talking about the whole range of pollution and that covers the Departments of Transport and Energy and indeed the Department of Defence as well as the Department of the Environment. There is nothing new about this concept but I admire the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, intervened on this matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That was a rather non-vintage reply if I may say so. The noble Lord seems to be in a state of some confusion in respect of the analogies that he referred to. I speak with due diffidence and timidity on the subject of the National Rivers Authority as a consequence of the noble Lord sitting behind me. The National Rivers Authority has specific, serious and important responsibilities. However, those responsibilities cover a specific area.
What we are concerned with here is pollution right across the board. We are concerned with a Bill which is intended to give to the Secretary of State—I take the noble Lord's point that the measure refers to any Secretary of State although primarily it concerns the Secretary of State for the Environment—wide powers to deal with pollution. Therefore deliberately to give him powers at the same time to shunt all responsibility—I use the word "shunt" deliberately—off on to an outside body whose actions he would not be responsible for in answering to either House of Parliament seems to me highly dangerous. The noble Lord appears to admit that the Secretary of State would not be responsible for the actions of the outside body.
I hope that the Committee will decide not to abdicate in this matter. If we pass the Bill, as I hope we will, Ministers, whoever they may be, will have to stand at the Dispatch Box and justify their action or inaction in all the innumerable respects mentioned in the amendment and covered by the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I reply to that specific point. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is now saying that what is objectionable is the range of functions which will be assigned to the executive. He has not challenged my fundamental analogies where I asserted that it is possible and may be laudable to assign some functions of the Secretary of State to another body. He does not dispute that that was the right thing to do with the National Rivers Authority. He did not argue against the analogy with the Health and Safety Executive or against the case of the Bill of his noble friend Lord Cranbrook. However, he is now saying that the amendment is objectionable because the specific functions proposed in the new clause under subsection (3) are wider than is democratically desirable.
All I can say about that is that those functions are drawn from the Bill. They are not drawn from an attempt to produce a wider Bill, much as we would wish that to occur. These are functions of the existing Bill that we now propose should be dealt with by a single body which has the range of responsibilities necessary to deal with them.
I should have thought the noble Lord would recognise that the thrust of this proposal to set up an executive is in line with the Government's policies. What, after all, is meant by the next steps procedures or by the setting up of executive agencies and the setting up of government trading organisations except exactly the desire to give independence and responsibility to those who carry out functions in the public sector? I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is going against the policy trend of his own Government.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am surprised that the noble Lord does not see the point that there is an enormous difference between looking at a body such as the National Rivers Authority and deciding that in those circumstances power should be delegated to that distinguished body and dealing with a Bill which goes right across the field of pollution. I do not accept that in the case of a Bill which covers every aspect of pollution, it should be contemplated that power should be given to the Minister to delegate all the functions of the Bill outside parliamentary control. If the noble Lord cannot see the difference between those two cases, I cannot help him further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am always intrigued by the eloquent interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I had a great deal of pleasure working with him when he was chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and I was the Minister with responsibility for aviation. He will be the first to recall that the Civil Aviation Authority was given powers by the government which I believe was led by Edward Heath precisely the same in principle as my noble friend Lord McIntosh envisages in this case. The Civil Aviation Authority was established long before those powers were granted, but eventually it was decided that there were many technical matters which required independence of government and objectivity. I believe that is what my noble friend is reaching out for here.

753
There is a germ of truth in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that there needs to be a certain measure of parliamentary accountability. If my memory serves me right—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—the Civil Aviation Authority has to report to Parliament annually as to its operations. It may be that there is an omission here as far as that organisation is concerned, but we are debating the principle.
As to the principle, it is the need to have a greater degree of independence and objectivity on environmental issues that has produced this proposal as far as my honourable friend is concerned. Indeed, as I understand it, this matter arose previously in the House during the debate on the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook.
I know that it is always dangerous to cite examples from abroad, but the United States Environmental Protection Agency was established to provide independence from the Government, as we are seeking to do here. Nobody can say that the record of the EPA is other than a very good one in general terms. It does not seem to have produced a situation in the democracy of the United States which has been harmful to that democracy; indeed, the reverse is true. So I think the noble Lord is over-egging the pudding a little in the observations that he has made in relation to my noble friend's speech. Perhaps he would like to answer the point I have made about the Civil Aviation Authority.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The Civil Aviation Authority was given considerable powers, but, as the noble Lord will recall from the days of his very helpful co-operation—which I am pleased to thank him for now after many years—when he was the Minister concerned there was still a residue of authority left in the Department of Trade and a certain number of questions could be asked. If I may add one pendant to that, I was told that I, as chairman and a Member of the House, could attend your Lordships' House when those questions were asked. I was not allowed to intervene but, said the civil servants, "facial expression is not excluded".
The Earl of Onslow: I apologise for arriving slightly late in the debate on this clause, but it seems to me that there is a wealth of difference between controlling civil aviation and controlling pollution. Pollution is a much wider issue and a much less easily defined subject than civil aviation. It would seem to me that pollution is much more political than civil aviation, so the parallel is not exactly right.
That is all I wanted to say. Perhaps as somebody who has only listened to the argument without having had experience of the matter I can hope to judge without being parti pris either way.
Lord Ross of Newport: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether the relevant clause is not:
"The Secretary of State may by order transfer such of his functions under this Act as he considers appropriate".
754
We are not asking for anything to be transferred in this amendment, only such functions as the Secretary of State himself thinks are appropriate.
Lord Campbell of Croy: This amendment raises matters conveniently at an early stage of the Committee on which I should like to seek clarification. They concern drafting and interpretation.
This is a United Kingdom Bill. A few parts only apply to Northern Ireland, and they are designated in Clause 147(4), but the Bill as a whole is drafted so that where there are separate systems in Scotland the appropriate words are inserted. For example, there is a separate inspectorate in Scotland. HM inspectorate has been spoken about in the singular so far this afternoon, but there is a separate one in Scotland. The National Rivers Authority, which has been mentioned several times this afternoon, deals with England and Wales only. Therefore, as noble Lords will already have seen, we find at various places in the Bill that the Scottish river pollution authorities are specially mentioned.
We also have the code and the system, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already referred, that the words "the Secretary of State" in the singular cover any Secretary of State or several Secretaries of State. That is the way our parliamentary legislation is drafted. It is always confusing to the public outside, or to those of them who are unfamiliar with the system, as most of them are.
For example, at the beginning of Clauses 2 and 3 we find the words "The Secretary of State". In many cases it will be thought that that means the Secretary of State for the Environment, but where those words occur they could mean any Secretary of State. In Clause 3(5), which is one of the parts that deal with Northern Ireland, it could apply to as many as four Secretaries of State. I am speaking now about the parts of the United Kingdom rather than the functions of defence or transport, which is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned.
This raises the question of what should happen in the amendment. The new clause, Amendment No. 2, appears to establish one environmental protection executive with one Secretary of State—I think most people reading this would think it was the Secretary of State for the Environment—taking the action proposed. But in the way that our statutes and Bills are drafted, and as Scotland is mentioned in subsection (2) of the amendment, it is clearly supposed to extend beyond England and Wales and therefore beyond the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether this means that if the new clause were accepted the Secretary of State for Scotland would be acting, in transferring functions and making orders, for that part of this new agency, this authority, which again is supposed to follow the "regional structure" in Scotland, taking the words used. These are the complications that arise.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has no environmental functions or responsibilities in Scotland. I would remind your Lordships that the

755
Scottish Office is over 100 years old and the Welsh Office is nearly 30 years old but has been taking over more functions, including all these, I am reliably informed. So there are the problems of different Secretaries of State for the parts of the United Kingdom as well as the Secretaries of State who have such functions as defence or transport.
I should like to ask the Minister to tell us at this stage, or in his reply later in the debate, whether the Bill in any part of it is going to change the position so far as Scotland is concerned. Is the Secretary of State for the Environment—for the first time for over 30 years, to my knowledge—to have some functions in Scotland? I would add that this is not a propitious moment to subtract from the functions devolved for Scotland because of the movement towards more devolution and nationalism in Scotland.
However, I should make it clear that although the functions under our existing statutes are separate where the Secretaries of State are concerned for different parts of the United Kingdom, my view is that the Secretary of State for the Environment should be the lead Minister on formulating policy for the United Kingdom and taking initiatives generally, as well as in international co-operation and negotiations. That has been the position in recent governments.
There will be even more for the Secretary of State for the Environment to do in that respect not only because of the Bill but because of the increased awareness throughout the world of the need for environmental protection. Nonetheless, in drafting amendments and changing or adding provisions to the Bill, we must work on the functions as they now exist which means, for example, that the Department of the Environment has no functions in Scotland.
I felt that I should raise these matters now partly because two noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Glenkinglas and a personal friend, Lord Ross of Marnock—are, I regret, no longer with us. I am certain that, as two other former Secretaries of State for Scotland, they would have raised those points. I ask for clarification not only from the mover of the amendment, but also in general in due course from the Government about how the problems will be dealt with in the Bill, given the separate functions and responsibilities of the four Secretaries of State.
Lord Addington: I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 3, but, before doing so, I should like to comment on Amendment No. 2.
Ultimately, we shall need a body which takes over an integrated environmental control role and the protection of our environment for the simple reason that it is far too wide a subject for the present structure to handle. We are talking about something that affects every part of our environment and government and goes beyond our national boundaries. Ultimately, we must probably head towards a European-wide structure. I am not qualified to join in the debate as to whether this is the correct form in which to put forward the proposal, but ultimately the idea must be considered in some form and another.
Lord Parry: It might be helpful to the Committee to remind ourselves at this stage of the Addison Rules. Two points are made in those rules, regarding the setting up of public bodies and the possibility of surrender of the Minister's authority to such a body if Parliament is not careful, which should be mentioned in the debate at this point. It is clear that, if an executive body were set up and the Addision Rules were followed, when questions affecting public bodies arise in Parliament, the Government are alone responsible to Parliament. That is the practice, not just the concept.
The rules go on to say:
"If Board members who happen also to be Lords were to give the House information about the day-to-day operations of the Board or to answer criticisms respecting it, the House would in fact be exercising a measure of parliamentary supervision over matters of management. It would also be difficult for the responsible Minister not to give similar information to the House of Commons".
The Committee should accept that it is a convention and practice that any body set up outside the House to carry out a function does not subsume the control of the Secretary of State. That is why chairmen of such bodies do not normally intervene without explanation in debates in the Chamber.
Lord Addington: As that point has been succinctly dealt with, I should like to say that Amendment No. 3 is probably the kind of amendment that we should encourage as it states exactly what the local authorities are supposed to do in relation to any other bodies around them. It has been described as leg work. If you are expected to do leg work, it is only decent that you should know exactly what you are supposed to be doing. A breakdown of functions should surely have occurred a long time ago. We should allow local authorities to know what they should do to help those who are in a greater position of power and have a co-ordinating role. I therefore recommend that Amendment No. 3 at least should be accepted.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I intended to intervene only briefly to make one point, but I am prompted by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, to make one other observation; namely, that the difficulty about the arrangement which he describes is that it is the practice of Ministers to refer all questions to the chairman of the appropriate body and it is the chairman who then answers by correspondence. So in practice it takes the ability to cross-examine away from the Chambers of both Houses of Parliament.
The one simple point that I wanted to make was that the heart of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is in the right place, but I fear that the method and the time that he has chosen are wrong. He argued that we should have a wider set of arrangements. In the Second Reading debate, I said that there would have to be further changes. I suggested that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution should be taken out of the Department of the Environment. I said that the National Rivers Authority had already put suggestions to government for a wider rationalisation of arrangements. I do not disagree that some further steps may be necessary,

757
but the difficulty of taking them in this Bill is that you must arrive at a set of arrangements without prior discussion, examination and consideration.
On looking at the selection of functions chosen by the noble Lord, I am bound to say that I remain pretty unconvinced because he has not carried out the essential task of working out the exact relationships between the various agencies and organisations. That is a vital first step. It is a step that the National Rivers Authority took because we are concerned about those relationships. It seems to me that, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, he has reached out for a solution and quite self-evidently failed to find it and therefore fallen down a deep hole. Surely the proper way to legislate on as important a matter as this is to come forward with detailed proposals in a White Paper, to consider them adequately and then to include them in a Bill. It is wrong to include a major change in the structure of our arrangements for looking after the environment by amendment at a late stage in the passage of a Bill of this kind.
I cannot even accept the argument that has been advanced that we need something like the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. One point about that agency is clear: it does not work a system of integrated pollution control. Anyone who has examined the way in which it works would not seek to base a model on it.
My simple point is this: I agree that there will be a need for further changes, but, as the Secretary of State observed, this is but a single Bill in a series of environmental Bills. There was an important environment Bill last year in the form of the Water Act. This is another Bill and clearly there will have to be later Bills. Surely on this occasion we are doing no more than having a brief canter round the course looking at the principles. I hope that the Committee will not accept the solutions that have been put forward.
The Earl of Onslow: There is something that I should like to say arising from what my noble friend Lord Campell said. To treat litter, pollution or the environment differently in Scotland or in Wales from in England is to go down the wrong path. A dirty blue plastic bag in the Tweed is just as nasty as in the River Wey. Litter on the streets of Edinburgh is just as bad as litter on the streets of Scunthorpe. That is one of the great dangers that we shall face.
I admit that I am perhaps going slightly away from the subject by talking about the structure of the United Kingdom, but those matters should be dealt with by one Secretary of State, not two. It is no good if the Secretary of State for Wales arrives at one conclusion about what should happen on one side of the River Usk and the Secretary of State for the Environment arrives at a different conclusion as to what should happen on the other side of the river. It is no good if the Secretary of State for Scotland arrives at one conclusion about what should happen on one side of the River Tweed and the Secretary of State for the Environment arrives at a different conclusion about what should happen on the other. That is about the most ridiculous method of trying
758
to control pollution or to look after the environment as it is conceivable to imagine. Surely we should take away those powers from outlying principalities. That is nothing to do with nationalism; it is to do with common sense. If I were a Scotsman, I should like to have just as good pollution control as my English counterparts. There is nothing Scottish, Welsh or English about a dirty beer can in a high street.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. My noble friend said that his intervention was based on what I said. I was not commenting; I was merely saying what the facts and the functions are and showing how the Bill has been drafted. To my knowledge, those arrangements have certainly existed in Scotland for well over 30 years and probably much longer. Bills have been drafted with those functions and Parliament expects the various Secretaries of State to answer to Parliament for the sectors for which they are responsible. It is a little difficult in a single Bill to upset that constitutional division of functions.
I was not raising the question of litter whether in one place or another. I was pointing out what the powers are now and how we can therefore draft. I have also asked the Government whether there is any intention to change. I shall be interested to hear the answer. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Onslow will also be interested to hear whether the effect of the Bill will be to make any transfer in functions between the various Ministers. I have not yet seen any sign of that. That is the problem with the kind of amendments that we are considering now.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that the Health and Safety Executive is somewhat facilitated by the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry is a United Kingdom department—it covers Scotland, England and Wales. I suggest that most of the safety and health activities are in the field of trade and industry. That made it easier for that measure to go through.
I am not against the principle that has been suggested. I merely point out that there are difficulties under our present division of responsibilities and ask for clarification.
Lord Parry: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would not expect me to agree too readily with the points that he made. He might expect some sympathy and I offer it to him. He could not think of a Welsh town whose name he could pronounce. The only river that he could pronounce was the single syllabled River Usk.
We have a particular responsibility in Wales because the beer can was invented there by Felinfoel Ales. Beer was first canned in Britain in Llanelli.
Lord Hesketh: One learns something every day in this Chamber. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for an environmental protection executive has a very respectable lineage. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook floated a similar idea last year, and the year before that in another place the Select Committteee on the Environment recommended the creation of such an executive.

759
The creation of an EPA does have arguments in its favour. But we believe, too, as we said in our response to the Select Committee's report, that the proposals that we are bringing forward in this Bill, taken together with the creation of the NRA under last year's Water Act, produce a sound system for the management of pollution control both at the national and local level. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, in introducing this Bill in another place, that he would look at the institutional arrangements for pollution control and that will no doubt be reflected in the White Paper to be published later this year.
I have to say, however, that the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not an EPA along the lines of that proposed by either my noble friend or the Select Committee of the other place. It is rather limited and is confined to the functions of the Secretary of State under this Act. In fact, I believe that the new clause is a recipe for some confusion. As an example of that confusion, one can take the first main clause of the Bill—Clause 2. Under the new clause the executive will become responsible for prescribing the processes to come under IPC—although I note with surprise not for local air pollution control—but it would not prescribe the substances for control. That would mean that regulation of all the precautionary preventive control of the Part I system (to minimise releases of particularly nasty substances) would presumably remain with the Secretary of State while the processes were controlled by the executive. I cannot see the logic in that.
One of the factors that needs to be taken into account in considering the merits of an EPE is how such an organisation would fit in with or intrude upon the role of local authorities. Local knowledge and the capacity for a fast response which lies with local authorities could be put at risk by a centralised system. In Amendment No. 3 the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, recognises the role that local authorities play. But I hardly think it necessary to impose upon them the requirements of that new clause. They are for the most part fulfilling its requirements already, particularly in making environmental information available and monitoring and auditing the quality of the local environment.
Many noble Lords went into the finer points of the relationship between the NRA and which parts were best to take out of which Bills to add together to produce the perfect EPA. However, it is important to remember that the EPA—about which I have heard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wax lyrical in this Chamber on many occasions in previous years—is at this moment in the United States being absorbed into the government. The director of the EPA is being made a Member of the Cabinet of the President of the White House. That may say something. I think the answer is that although the EPA is extraordinarily attractive—for want of not using any further words than that—in political terms, the reality is that we have come up with a particularly British solution, a solution that is designed to work even though it may not look so good in terms of an advertising hoarding.
760
Finally, in reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell, there are two answers: yes and no. The answer "yes" refers to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland will in particular continue to take the lead on national matters, as he does at present. With special adaptations the Bill applies as and where required to Scotland as to England and Wales, but the functions of the Secreatary of State for Scotland remain entirely unaltered. The only areas that will affect Scotland directly in this Bill in a way that changes the position will be with regard to the NCC in Part VII.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have been delighted by this short debate if perhaps not quite for the reasons which all those who took part in it might expect. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his last remarks about what he calls the peculiarly "British" solution. It is indeed in many respects the peculiarly British solution that has landed us with the name of the dirty man of Europe, with a less effective system of pollution control than the United States has had for many years and a far less effective system of pollution control than many European countries. It has also led us to be under continuous attack from international organisations and the European Commission over the inadequacy of our response to environmental protection matters. I acknowledge that the Bill is an attempt in some limited way to deal with the problems which may be identified as going along with a peculiarly British solution, but if I were the Minister I should not boast about it.
I can deal fairly quickly with the issue of the Scottish and Welsh dimensions. The provisions in the new clause are no different from the provisions in the Bill itself. As the Minister made quite clear in his reply, nothing in the Bill takes away from the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. What is intended, and I believe achieved, by this amendment is quite different. It is not intended to deal with matters between the regions of England and—let me get it right—the Kingdom of Scotland and the Principality of Wales. That is not the object of the exercise. Our object is to ensure that we no longer get away with the peculiarly British solution of thinking that we have dealt with the environment and its protection by giving one Secretary of State the smart title the Secretary of State for the Environment when we know perfectly well that he is the Secretary of State responsible for local government, housing and planning with a little bit of environment tacked on at the end.
Lord Campbell of Croy: That is in England and Wales.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says—in England and Wales. The objective of the amendment and the reason that it is deliberately phrased in this way is so that there should be a co-ordinated view of environmental protection and that it should take into account—later amendments will spell it out in more detail—the responsibilities of the Secretaries

761
of State for Transport, for Defence, for Energy and any other departments which have an impact on the environment. That is exactly what this amendment is about; that is exactly what this Bill will not achieve.
The Minister may think that it is a response to my arguments to say that the Environmental Protection Agency has now been enlarged by the addition of a Minister in the American Cabinet. I do not disagree, although there was always an Interior Secretary who had many of those responsibilities. I refer him to the Labour Party policy document that has just been published. Not only shall we have an Environmental Protection Executive of the kind proposed in this amendment but it will report to a Minister in the Cabinet with overall responsibility for protection of the environment. What the Minister has described as happening in the United States is exactly Labour Party policy.
I appreciate that I am not doing my best to secure support for the amendment in all corners of the Committee but at least I am being consistent. At least we have our eyes on what is achievable and at the only time that it is achievable. If Members of the Committee believe that it is possible to delay these issues by saying that there will be a White Paper in the autumn and legislation later they are neglecting the fact that time is at our heels.
There must be a general election within two years, which means that there is only one more full Session of Parliament. It is already clear, and I challenge any Minister to deny it, that there will be no legislation to implement a White Paper on environmental protection in the 1990–91 Session. That means that there will be no other major legislation on environmental protection in the last Parliament of this Government. For that reason it is essential for the Committee to set out what it believes to be the proper concerns of an Environmental Protection Bill in the true sense rather than in the more limited measure which is now before us.
Lord Hesketh: When I referred to a peculiarly British solution the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saw that as an opportunity immediately to denigrate my remarks. Since the passage of the Water Act last year my office has looked at the Order Papers as having a veritable drought of Questions with regard to the pollution of water. We have combined two bodies—HMIP and the NRA—to produce success. It is no good the noble Lord saying that because we are not to have an EPA it does not work, because we have shown that it has worked.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take it that the Minister means a veritable flood of Questions rather than a veritable drought.
Lord Hesketh: No, I mean no Questions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Whether the Government wished it or not, in changing the ownership of the water and sewerage industries the effect of the Water Act was to raise public awareness of the defects of our water supply. All credit to the
762
Government for having done that, even though they did so without fully intending it.
The objections that have been raised about the scope of Amendment No. 2 and its relationship to Amendment No. 3 have not been well substantiated. The amendment provides what the Bill does not, that is, an adequate mechanism at central government level and collaboration between central and local government for the implementation of an environmental protection industry. The Bill as drafted does not provide that. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 130.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Mulley, L.

Davies, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Scanlon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Allerton, L.

Arran, E.

Alport, L.

Ashbourne, L.

763

Auckland, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Balfour, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brain, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Melville, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burton, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caccia, L.

Mountevans, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moyne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nathan, L.

Carnock, L.

Nelson, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Cawley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cox, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Porritt, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Quinton, L.

Craigton, L.

Radnor, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

Renwick, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rodney, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Elibank, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sharples, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Foley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gibson, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gisborough, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Swinton, E.

Halsbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Hanson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayter, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hood, V.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Howe, E.

Wise, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Woolton, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Kimball, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.11 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 4:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("General duty to protect the environment
. This Part shall be interpreted as subject to a general duty on the Secretary of State and on other persons to whom functions are assigned under it to promote the protection, conservation and improvement of the environment.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to place a general duty on the Secretary of State, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and local authorities and to write the imposition of that duty on to the face of the Bill.
On Report in the other place the Minister said at col. 749 of Hansard that integrated pollution control is a radical new measure putting Great Britain in the forefront of pollution control. In my Second Reading speech I said that noble Lords on all sides welcomed the introduction of integrated pollution control. The Bill is an important measure in any future environmental policy and practice. Surely it could have been expected that a general duty to protect, conserve and improve the environment would be set out clearly and unequivocally at the beginning.
The Bill gives some 70 new powers to the Secretary of State and places many new onerous obligations on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and also on the local authorities. My proposed new clause spells out the terms of reference which are missing from Part I and goes some way towards allaying the anxieties expressed by organisations and individuals. Proper resources for monitoring and research as well as enforcement of the new powers, including the necessary training and recruitment, are essential if the good intentions of the Bill are to be put into practice. The duty imposed by this amendment, initially upon the Secretary of State, carries with it the presumption that resources must be made available to meet that obligation.
Earlier debates focused on the need for adequate staffing of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. The Government have promised that HMIP will have whatever staff it needs. That is very welcome. However, that contrasts with the provision of the Bill for only 15 additional staff. That applies only to Part I. Admittedly there are further provisions made for staff in other areas, but not many. Local authorities are worried that the cost recovery system will not provide adequate funds in the initial stages of the new scheme.
There are doubts about the current Bill, which I am sure the Government appreciate. There is a great deal of evidence and representations have been made from bodies involved with the environment on the forthcoming White Paper. There are doubts on the limited scope of integrated pollution control. The Minister said that there will be 5,000 major producers of polluted waste, although today the figure of 3,500 was mentioned. Processes causing a less dramatic level of pollution still fall outside the scope of the Bill. Waste management is being passed to arm's-length companies in England and Wales. However, that measure is not replicated in Scotland and we do not know how that will work.
HMIP entertains many expectations. We do not know—the matter was dealt with very honestly by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in his Second Reading speech and again today—how HMIP and the NRA will relate to each other. He said that further co-ordination will be necessary. How are we to resource the new litter proposals? The Minister indicated that he will consider requests for additional resourcing on a case by case basis within

765
the RSG mechanism. That is hardly conducive to proper forward planning and environmental protection. I dread to think what will happen if there is additional charge capping. We have heard rumours about that from 10 Downing Street. I do not know how local authorities will deal with the problems of litter and waste throughout our countryside if they are not in a position to give incentives to people to tidy the countryside.
A commitment to the broad aims of environmental protection at the start of the Bill would give some reassurance on such issues. It is anticipated that the White Paper will be published at the end of September in time for the Conservative Party Conference. The Government's willingness to consult on the wider issues, including consultation with local authority associations, has been most welcome. I put on record that I am very grateful to the Minister, Mr. Trippier, who recently saw representatives of Wildlife Link. We submitted our own suggestions as to what should be in the White Paper and we were able to make personal representations to the Minister and his civil servants.
However, a White Paper is not legislation. It appears that apart from what the Minister said on Report about a further planning Bill there will be no further legislation in the immediate future. That is what we are all so worried about. This is a very worthy Bill but it does not cover the real problems of pollution control and environmental protection. It may be several years before we are able to put into legislation some provisions which have been discussed for a long time and which many of us believe are highly desirable and should be dealt with here and now.
On Saturday, Mr. Trippier was in Dublin. Perhaps the Minister responding today can tell us what happened at that conference. He is looking very mystified, but I understand that Mr. Trippier was there and that there is now a suggestion that there may be a European-wide environmental body to which we should have to respond. I hope that such matters are proceeding apace. The Government have initiated certain conferences on global warming. Therefore, anxieties have been expressed which are not dealt with by this legislation. It is important to emphasise in this Bill the need to develop essential strategies and authorisation processes. In this part of the Bill only one element has such a strategy. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Harringey: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. In many ways it complements the amendments which I have already moved. I am glad that he supported them. Without anticipating more than is absolutely necessary our subsequent debate in Committee, this amendment is essential if we are to be convinced that the Government mean what they say when they are putting forward an environmental protection Bill of this sort.
The reason that it is necessary to state that there should be a general duty not only upon the Secretary
766
of State has been well rehearsed; that is, because a general duty to protect the environment is required of government as a whole rather than only the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall not go into that argument again.
However, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, raises another issue of fundamental importance; namely, the role of local authorities and the resources available to them. Again, we shall deal with those matters on later amendments.
Perhaps I could refer back to the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill. It says that the pollution control regime—integrated pollution control—is set up under Part I of the Bill
"for prescribed industrial, commercial and other processes"—
I will not go into the England, Wales or Scotland argument—
"to be operated by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, and a parallel regime providing for local authority control of air emissions from a second tier of less polluting processes".
That is a most unsatisfactory situation for local authorities. Restricting their level of responsibility under Part I of the Bill to air pollution and within air pollution to a second tier of less polluting processes is not the way in which we should be seeking to achieve, or are likely to achieve, the full collaboration between local and central government which is necessary if effective integrated pollution control is to work.
For that reason I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that it is necessary to say that that part of the Bill should be interpreted as being subject to a general duty on the Secretary of State and other persons to whom functions are assigned under it. Other functions are assigned to local authorities. They must have a general duty if affected—putting it as neutrally as I can—by swings in one direction or another in the nature of local authority funding. There might be swings in the balance between central funding of local authority services and locally raised funding and changes in the way in which locally raised funding—for example, the community charge—is applied. We understand that there are proposals in train to make such changes which may include wider community charge capping, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, rightly pointed out.
If there is that degree of uncertainty, as I believe there is, in local authority funding, how will environmental protection be secured as an essential part of the range of services and activities of local authorities? Let us not forget that a large part of the duties and therefore the expenditure of local authorities is imposed on them by central government. Education, community care—which has been debated in this Chamber—and many other features of local authority expenditure impose statutory duties on the local authority. Local authorities can be pursued at law if they fail to fulfil that statutory duty.
Is environmental protection to be the poor relation of local authority expenditure? No local authority would wish that to be the case. If collaboration between local authorities and central government is to be achieved there must be some way of securing adequate resources and a general duty in connection

767
with those resources laid upon local authorities. I take that to be the purpose of the amendment; I therefore support it.
Lord Parry: It might be helpful if I guide the Committee regarding what happened in Wales some years ago when I was chairman of the Wales Council of Keep Britain Tidy. I was introduced to a system which very much involved local government. All local councils in Wales were participants and leaders in the clean-up of Wales attempted at that time.
When I became chairman throughout Britain of Keep Britain Tidy and eventually of the Tidy Britain Group, I found that other local authorities were keen to follow the pattern of Wales but that their money was already budgeted in committee. It is essential to understand—if the Committee does not support the amendment—that there is a great concern among local authorities committed to environmental cleansing that the funds must be forthcoming. I should also like to lay before the Committee the fact that the problem is increasing and is no more than ameliorated by the measures taken by the various organisations assigned to the task.
A great deal of unfortunate misunderstanding has existed over the past few years as to who was to be responsible for litter. We have had some difficulty in resolving the question. Some 14 weeks ago I picked up the first beer can at Land's End for a private enterprise group—Ideal Homes—who committed the whole of their staff and a great deal of resources to a clean-up of aluminium cans for recycling. The task has just been completed; I picked up the last can at John O'Groats last Thursday afternoon. That one company, with the support of local authorities and by devoting a great deal of effort to the task, has collected cans which would extend to twice the height of Mount Everest. Yet there are many more cans left in the hedgerows of Britain waiting to be collected.
Whatever the Committee resolves, it should be understood that the problem is a large one. It is essentially connected with local government funding and raising funds from other sources. Even were a great deal of money devoted to the problem, it could not be solved.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord, Lord Ross, wishes Part I to be interpreted as placing a general duty on the Secretary of State and others to protect, conserve and improve the environment. Those are worthy sentiments but the amendment itself is unnecessary. The amendment gives me the opportunity to make categorically clear that the purpose of the Environmental Protection Bill is indeed to protect the environment. I am confident there is no possible room for doubt about that; I can say that in Part I of the Bill we are introducing the most sophisticated pollution control system in Europe.
The proposed duty on the Secretary of State allows no possible room for doubt about his intentions in fulfilling any of his function under the Bill. Our record on the environment over the past 10 years and more puts that beyond question. We are taking an international lead in protecting the atmosphere.
768
Billions of pounds are being spent on cleaning up power stations, improving the quality of our rivers, our beaches and our drinking water.
A number of people including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the amendment which proceeded this one, continue to bring accusations of Britain being the dirty man of Europe. I shall not repeat the arguments I made a moment ago. This Bill, with the strong measures I have outlined, carries the process further forward. The duties and functions of local authorities under Part I of the Bill are clear and explicit. There is also the matter of cost recovery charging. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the reasonable point that we could have a series of debates on each of the amendments which are effectively covered by later amendments, Amendment No. 59 in the case of this particular amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall; not we could.
Lord Hesketh: It is in a state of complete certainty that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that. I reassure the Committee that if the Secretary of State, speaking purely hypothetically, were to act in any way other to promote the protection and improvement of the environment, he would be acting beyond his powers and therefore unlawfully. For those reasons we resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful for the response of the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, has been involved in the picking up of cans from Land's End to John O'Groats: he is now an expert on cans. However, he had perhaps better go north to the Shetlands. I spent a holiday in the Shetlands 30 years ago before the oil boom. One could be 20 miles from Lerwick in the midst of the most barren countryside; yet if one stepped out of the car one automatically stood on a McEwan's beer can. There are probably millions of McEwan's beer cans all over the Shetlands. People obviously went into town, filled up the car with cans then threw them out on their way home. I am afraid that there is a large problem in the Shetlands.
We were given a glowing account of the Government's achievements by the Minister. No doubt he will be in the good books of the Prime Minister. However, some of us are not quite so impressed with the Government's achievements, although we think that the Bill is very worthy and therefore will not argue too much. However, I think that the Minister goes a bit over the top in saying how much is being spent and how much is being done. A lot of us think that this country is dragging its feet. I am not saying that we are the dirtiest country in Europe because that covers Eastern Europe, which is absolutely filthy in parts, and this country has done some good things though there is still a long way to go. However, I do not intend to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 5: Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Statement of objectives etc. in relation to environmental protection
—(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, and periodically as he considers appropriate thereafter, lay before Parliament a statement of the objectives and practices which he considers desirable to be undertaken by other persons in relation to environmental protection.
(2) For the purposes of this section, environmental protection shall be taken to include activities falling within the scope of this Act or such other activities as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State shall, before laying any statement made under this section, consult organisations concerned with, or exercising duties in relation to, the protection or conservation of the environment or the regulation of activities likely to affect the environment, or on whom such duties are placed under his Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also appears in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Its purpose is to create a mechanism which will allow Parliament to debate strategic issues affecting the environment based on a statement drawn up and revised after substantial consultation. Recent debate has acknowledged the need, if not for a national plan at the very least for a national strategy which will improve and safeguard the environment. In particular, the development of an effective system of integrated pollution control will rely on a network of central and local government agencies, voluntary organisations and individuals. Many issues such as global warming must be considered in an international context.
While the Bill has received a qualified welcome and has been improved during its passage through the other place, it is essential that neither this legislation nor the promised White Paper is seen as an end in itself. The amendment now before the Committee would require a clear statement of environmental objectives and best practice periodically to be laid before Parliament. While the responsibility for initiating this statement would rest with the Secretary of State for the Environment, the amendment would also ensure that organisations and agencies concerned with implementing protection or conservation measures would have the opportunity to express their views, if only during the consultation period.
I repeat: I am sure the Minister will see that the response received from the outside NGOs to the opportunity to make representations to the Government on the forthcoming White Paper shows the interest that has been expressed by those bodies. Some excellent documents have been sent in and I am sure that Members of this Committee will have seen a copy of the excellent contribution from the CPRE.
It is widely acknowledged that all people are, or are becoming, more environmentally conscious than ever before. That needs to be reflected in the way that Parliament deals with environmental issues. Crisis management is inappropriate. These issues affect us all and should be given appropriate priority in the business of the House. In the other place the Minister took the view that the Department of the
770
Environment's annual digest of environmental statistics offered sufficient information to make a regular statement of strategy unnecessary. That digest is obviously a very worthy document and I gather that there have been promises that it will be improved, but a digest of statistics is an historical snapshot. It does not in itself address the wider strategic issues which concern all parties or provide a mechanism for consultation with those organisations responsible for giving effect to the law.
Moreover, we do not yet know the full implications of the Water Act 1989, and the mechanics established by that Act for setting and monitoring standards of water quality have not yet been properly tested. Indeed, concern has been expressed during debates on strategy, resourcing and implementation. For example, inspectors who specialise in specific areas of pollution control will be expected to regulate a wide variety of industrial processes. Improved standards are essential, but how are they to be resourced and who will pay? What should be the timetable for implementation? Who needs to be consulted? What do they have to say?
At present we are struggling to come to terms with the European perspective, yet instances like Chernobyl and the ghastly recent oil spills in New York and the Gulf of Mexico make clear that a global perspective is equally essential. I suggest that that perspective is precisely what this Bill lacks.
The amendment gives an opportunity to express a wider vision which the Government repeatedly state they hold. In response to the previous amendment the Minister clearly stated that he holds that view. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like to explore something with the Government on the basis of the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. In fact, as the noble Lord said, it is important to have a national strategy dealing with environmental policy which invokes the aid of a whole range of voluntary organisations, non-governmental organisations, and so on.
There has been a very interesting development in the United States and I wonder whether the Government will deem to give this sort of development their approval in relation to the United Kingdom. The perfectly responsible and authoritative environmental organisations have undertaken an initiative in relation to American corporations which seeks to utilise the right of corporate shareholders to place matters to a vote before shareholders as a way of giving prominence to environmental issues. Specifically, what the organisations have done is to develop a set of principles which they encourage shareholders to adopt. These are known as the Valdez principles, after the notorious "Exxon Valdez" case.
Shareholders are encouraged publicly to affirm their belief in the form of these principles that they have responsibility for environmental protection—which, in my judgment, they certainly should have—and that the corporations concerned should conduct their business as responsible stewards of the environment; and in determining

771
their policies and seeking their profits to do so in a manner that leaves the earth healthy and safe.
I shall not go into the detail of those principles but they cover matters such as protection of the biosphere; minimising and striving to eliminate the release of pollutants that can cause environmental damage to the air, water, the earth or its inhabitants; to recognise the need for sustainable use of natural resources; to deal with the reduction and disposal of waste; the wise use of energy; commitment to minimise the environmental health and safety risks to employees and the communities in which the industry operates by employing safe technologies and operating procedures and by being constantly prepared for emergencies; the marketing of safe products and services; damage compensation; disclosure; and a host of other matters. They rely extensively on assessment and annual audits in relation to the environment.
It seems to me that it would be a perfectly reasonable development, perhaps equally in the field of company law as environmental law, to follow a similar course given the encouragement of government as far as concerns the various environmental agencies. I should very much like to hear whether in principle the Government welcome that sort of approach—an approach which, as I have said before, seems to be having considerable success in the United States.
Lord Nathan: This amendment seems to produce a very constructive idea which has been tried successfully in the European Community. Since 1972 there has been a succession of environmental action programmes within the EC which I believe could well form a model for government here. The action programmes—I think we are on the fourth at the moment—deal with broad principles but they also deal with fairly specific programmes without being too detailed, so that questions of philosophy are certainly mentioned; for example, the emphasis on the preventative approach which has now been accepted everywhere but which some years ago was not accepted in this country at all.
There is the question of the priorities to be given to different actions. For example, we talk a great deal about pollution but not very much at the moment about the question of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and their protection, the integration of the environmentally sensitive areas and how all these matters should be developed.
Some come in the agricultural context and some are environmental questions. It would be a great advantage if once a year or, if desired, once every four years, government put out a statement of their broad programme and intent in relation to the environment. Without that there is a tendency which we have witnessed to leap from emergency to emergency. One wants a guideline and an outline of the policy and programme against which one can assess how far it has been carried through and how far there has been a falling short. There is much to be said for the proposals contained in the amendment which has just been moved.
Lord Hesketh: I am happy to say that the Government are already doing what the amendment
772
asks for. They are engaged in a comprehensive review of environmental policy which will lead to a complete statement of the Government's strategies, principles, priorities and policies in relation to environmental protection. The White Paper is to be published this autumn and it will address the role and the responsibilities of individuals, business and public bodies, as well as those of the Government. I can assure the Committee that in preparing the White Paper the Government have sought the views of those concerned on an unprecedentedly wide scale. For the sake of completeness, I add that the Government have consulted extensively on the preparation of this Bill and will continue to consult extensively on its implementation.
I hope that others share my view that it is quite superfluous to require by statute that the Government should perform a task that they are already implementing. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the Valdez Principles. I find that a most interesting notion. I hope that shareholders encourage their company boards to consider all environmental aspects of their work and the greening of industry. We believe it is a process that is taking off and the Government are keen to encourage it.
When I say that the Government are keen to encourage it, I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to a press release issued by the Department of the Environment on 29th January in which my right honourable friend the Minister of State produced a 10-point green audit for British commence and industry. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was entirely correct in drawing attention to the fact that if this issue became a legislative matter it would be a matter for company law, as he suggested. He is absolutely correct in that respect. We believe that the White Paper will comprehensively cover the point that the noble Lords' amendment makes. More importantly, the White Paper will appear considerably sooner than within six months of the Bill becoming an Act.
Lord Clinton-Davis: While I appreciate what has been said by the Minister in response to the question affecting the Valdez Principles, I wonder whether he would like to reflect on ways of pursuing the point rather more actively than has already been done. I do not deny for one moment that the Government have addressed some of these points. On reflection, perhaps the Minister would care to write to me, having considered the application of the Valdez Principles, on a more effective way in which the Government can address the specific point. Perhaps he can do that in conjunction with his right honourable friend the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry.
I advert to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I do not think that the Minister answered it. Merely to say that the Government will consult is not meeting the point at all. As I understand it, what was envisaged was that the Government would from time to time—the exact time does not matter for the purpose of this debate—set out a statement of principles rather like the fourth action programme for which I had some responsibility and which the

773
Government, like all the other member states, have accepted in principle.
We have a changing scenario all the time in the environmental field. It would be helpful if the Government were periodically to set out how they reflect on the necessity for change within the period in question. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on what I thought was an extremely valuable and constructive point made by the noble Lord.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To some extent I too was taken aback by the Minister's reponse, which I thought did more credit to his heart than to his understanding of the way in which governments work. It is one thing to say that there will be this glorious tuppence-coloured, all-bells-ringing White Paper to come out for the Conservative Party Conference. No doubt the first priority of the Government at the present time is to rally and restore confidence in their own supporters.
That is not quite the same thing as showing to the electorate as a whole that the Government are serious about environmental protection. I am surprised that the Government should resist the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, of an opportunity to say at regular intervals, "These are the objectives that we are setting ourselves concerning environmental protection and this is the way in which we are succeeding in doing so".
If the Government are serious about giving environmental protection, it is a gift to a public relations man. It is exactly the kind of thing that Mr. Ingham and the Conservative Central Office would love to have. It is difficult to see why the Government should resist this offer other than on the ground which I suspect lies behind the resistance; namely, that they do not intend to do very much except to issue White Papers at Conservative Party conferences.
Lord Hesketh: I take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the last statement. The White Paper will be produced for everyone. It is not being produced for the Conservative Party Conference. He quite rightly said that it was more my heart speaking than my experience in government. I say to the noble Lord that, as he rightly pointed out earlier, there are four Secretaries of State involved with environmental questions, and that is a minimum figure. Having seen what is involved in producing a White Paper where there are a minimum of four departments concerned, providing a useful document every six months on the basis of what four departments can agree among themselves will not, I suspect, give the benefit that the promoters of this amendment expect.
Lord Ross of Newport: I correct the Minister. We do not say that a report should be produced every six months, but we say that one should be produced within six months of the Bill becoming law. We then talk about a report being made periodically. I believe that there has been a blow-your-own-trumpet session in the Department of the Environment before the Minister came here today. If that is what the answer is to be throughout the passage of this Bill, I warn him that he will be on his feet for a long time.
774
His reply was not good enough. It was far too glib. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his support, which was very timely. I am grateful for the contribution that he made in pointing out what happens elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, we live in changing times and the scenario changes. It is not good enough to say that we shall get a White Paper in September or October, that that is adequate and that nothing else is needed.
Defence Estimates are debated each year in the other place. There are reports made from the Royal Commission on the Environment and these are debated. Why should not the Secretary of State report back on progress every now and again? We are not saying that this should take place every six months. It may be every year or two years if it is such an ordeal. I acknowledge that the Government are consulting very widely about the White Paper. I believe that the Secretary of State intended initially that it would be a very worthwhile document. However, the reports that are now reaching us are rather less reassuring. We believe that the Minister is being pushed back a peg or two. The White Paper may not be anything like as forward looking as originally anticipated. I am not satisfied with the response and I shall divide the Committee over the issue.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Airedale, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blackstone, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunt, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Jay, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kagan, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ennals, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Longford, E.

Ezra, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Foot, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Galpern, L.

Nathan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B,

Ogmore, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Grey, E.

Parry, L.

Grimond, L.

Peston, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L.

775

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rochester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stedman, B.

Winstanley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hooper, B.

Allerton, L.

Howe, E.

Alport, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Arran, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kitchener, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burton, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mountevans, L.

Caldecote, V.

Moyne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Onslow, E.

Cawley, L.

Orkney, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Quinton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Radnor, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Rodney, L.

Craigton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Crickhowell, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Sharples, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Elles, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Faithfull, B.

Gainford, L.

Swansea, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Swinfen, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Teviot, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanson, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Westbury, L.

Hayter, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Henley, L.

Wise, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wynford, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
Clause 1 [Preliminary]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 11. after ("or) insert ("— (a)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, 10 to 18, 21 to 23 and 139. I realise that the grouping provided that I should speak also to Amendment No. 9 but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes for that to be dealt with separately.
These are rather more than drafting amendments. They are an attempt to deal with the considerable degree of confusion which still exists in the Bill about the definitions of the environment and related terms. I realise that some of the confusion arises because of the willingness of the Government to accept arguments put forward in another place and their decision to propose amendments of their own to give effect to those arguments. Whatever the goodwill involved the result is that we have different definitions in different parts of the Bill; many definitions that are inadequate and out of date; and definitions that do not coincide with the definitions used by the European Community. The Community will after all continue to issue directives that will have to be implemented by the Government. It is not just a matter of confusion; it is rather worse than that. I shall not go into all the amendments in detail; I shall select some of the more conspicuous ones.
My first objection is personal and aesthetic. Perhaps it may not make all that much difference to the Bill but I object to earth, water and air being called media rather than elements, as they have been known since time immemorial. I do not see what is lost by calling them elements. The term is much more elegant and much more consistent with the British literary and linguistic tradition. To call them media makes it sound as though someone has been reading far too much McLuhan and far too little of the Bible.
I hope that the Government, without any party prompting, will feel able to accept this series of minor amendments. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when he comes to move Amendment No. 9 which refers to "environmental medium", will feel that the use of the word "environment" is a better way of expressing that concept.
Amendment No. 8 contains a little more detail about what is meant by the word "elements". As drafted, the Bill is not clear as to whether we are talking about the natural environment which subsists in or is supported by the elements; it is certainly not clear whether we are covering the physical environment of buildings or natural or man-made structures. I shall not risk moving into the same debate about man-made structures and archaeological remains which we moved into last year when discussing the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Water Bill. It is inadequate simply to talk about health. These days without delving into holistic medicine, I think it can be said

777
that people recognise that health is not simply the absence of disease or its cure; it is a state of well-being. We think that that fact ought to be recognised in the amendment.
Further amendments deal with the potential harm which is not covered by the definitions in the Bill. By way of illustration, perhaps I may take as an example an occurrence which has been much mentioned. I refer to oil spillages. If you are dealing with such spillages, like those which came from the "Exxon Valdez" the "Gulf of Mexico" and the "Amoco Cadiz", and so on, one of the actions you have to take is to seek to minimise the damage from the oil spillage. Therefore, you must have the booms and the chemicals and other equipment. However, I suggest that the other action which must be taken is to ascertain what is necessary in the procedures of oil tankers as regards their crewing ratios, their crewing skills, their navigational skills and their construction in order to prevent such things happening. As the Bill is drafted at present, the definition of "pollution" will deal with the first part of my argument—that is, what happens when the pollution has already occurred—but it will not deal with the second part.
Amendments like Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 deal with issues such as graffiti. It may well be that painting objectionable words on walls is not a form of criminal damage. However, it is still very unpleasant aesthetically and people are frightened to use public places where graffiti exists. The definition ought to be extended to ensure that it also covers such situations.
I do not think that Members of the Committee would thank me if I were to go into detail about all the amendments. Indeed, some of them are somewhat repetitive and they make the same points in different ways in different parts of the Bill. However, I hope it will be understood that these amendments were intended to be constructive. They would not widen the definition of "environment" or "pollution" unnecessarily; but they would bring it into line with current practice and make the provisions of the Bill easier to apply. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and indeed to Members of the Committee, for agreeing to deal separately with Amendment No. 9 which is tabled in my name and Amendment No. 11 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I think that they are slightly different. The noble Lord suggested, through a number of amendments, that we ought to define as closely as we can those matters to which this part of the Bill applies. I have no quarrel in that respect.
However, the noble Lord will see that Amendment No. 14 which is tabled in his name and which reads,
"after ("senses") insert ("including his aesthetic sense"),
is diametrically opposed to Amendment No. 13, which is tabled in my name, because it proposes to remove that whole phrase. Of course, I understand exactly what he means by "aesthetic sense". However, my amendment, which would negative his
778
amendment were the Committee to accept my view, has been put forward because I feel that if the phrase were to be left in the Bill it would allow a considerable amount of subjective judgment on the meaning of "harm" as it relates to an individual.
In my view, a selective judgment has no form of measurement. Indeed, what may offend one person may not offend another. One would then end up by having to make some arbitrary decision. I do not know whether there would be a problem in this respect. For example, someone could decide that he did not like a chimney stack, a particular factory or that he disliked the smell emanating from a brewery. These are all matters which might have serious consequences for industry generally. As I said, they could be subjected to this subjective decision where there is no form of measurement.
I think that it is more desirable that one should remove that phrase from the Bill and that one should not accept Amendment No. 14. Rather than attempt to suggest exactly what should be included—because I do not believe that can be done—I think that we should leave the matter to good sense. I certainly accept the noble Lord's view about the general wording—for example, "elements" and so on. What he suggests seems to me to be very much more simple. Indeed, we have enough problems with this Bill.
I turn now to deal with the noble Lord's remarks about Amendment No. 9. I suggest that we refer to "the environment" and that we do not attempt to prescribe pieces of the environment to suit particular arguments. However, I do not like the idea of introducing a subjective judgment into what might offend one group of people but not another. It seems to me that that would lead to arguments. I am not happy with Amendment No. 14; I am rather happier with my amendment, Amendment No. 13. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister would care to comment on what I see as a dichotomy.
Lord McNair: I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, to which my name is attached. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the word "element" is greatly preferable to the word "medium". On Second Reading, I noted the strange and strained definition of the "environment" given on page 2 of the Bill. It is difficult to see why the Government have gone to such trouble to invent a new definition when those in the dictionary are so simple and straightforward. It may be that they have phrased the legislation in such a way so as to link up with the responsibilities of the different authorities in connection with pollution control; for example, the National Rivers Authority with regard to pollution in rivers, and the local authority with regard to pollution on land. I do not know whether that assumption is correct; it is just a guess on my part. However, if that is the case, then I fear that this separation, carried through even to the very definition of the word "environment", would cause problems when pollution from a landfill site leaches through the ground into the water table and thence into a river. The NRA might say that the pollution was the fault of the local authority, and the local authority might then say, "Prove it!". We

779
would then have a sterile episode of buck-passing while the pollution continued unchecked.
As I see it, part of the purpose of this amendment is to cause the political discussion about what we mean by the word "environment" to evolve into a more comprehensive awareness on the part of the Government of the overarching significance of the issues being tackled in the Bill. I feel very strongly that this is not a subject which we can afford to view in such a piecemeal or limited way as proposed by the Government. I therefore urge Members of the Committee to accept these amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: I am not altogether happy about the amendments. Nevertheless, it is always worthwhile for a Member of this place to question some of the definitions. Amendment No. 7 relates to the word "medium". From my reading of the legislation as it stands it appears to be the Government's intention to separate pollution of the air from pollution in other media. The control of air pollution is a local function: water pollution is the responsibility of the inspectorate, the NRA, or some similar body. I am not keen on the word "elements". To some extent it has a ring of the old definition of fire, air, earth and water, but that is a matter of opinion.
I deal now with Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. We must be careful about the use of the word "senses" because, whether we like it or not, we will always have to have materials such as caustic soda, weed killer, paint stripper and fungicides to get rid of wet and dry rot. They may be unpleasant, and some may be poisonous. However, if we are to survive, we need them.
Amendment No. 16 is a pity: it cuts out the prescribed process which is something that needs to be written into the legislation.
The Earl of Onslow: The word "element" is, I believe, an 18th century word. There used to be the three elements of earth, sea and air. I seem to think that I have a Dresden jug representing them made in about 1780. I am talking of the old meaning of the word; it now has a more scientific meaning. It means the element of hydrogen or lead, or whatever it may be. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to say which word makes the Bill clearer. Is it element or medium? I am not sure. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is reaching for a dictionary. That is probably helpful. I should be hesitant to allow into the Bill anything which related pollution to aesthetics. A French friend of ours had a daughter who was complaining about her nanny. When she was asked why she did not like her nanny, her reply was, "Maman, elle gêne mon sens de l'esthétique". The nanny should surely not be convicted of environmental pollution merely because she was thought to be ugly. We should be careful about introducing words such as "aesthetic", "elements" and "medium". It is surely almost a dictionary judgment.
Lord Nathan: Perhaps it is in order for me to support the definition contained in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It coincides
780
in certain respects with Amendment No. 11 which I have tabled. The point is a short one. Surely some explanation is required—it may be a slip—as to why the definition in Clause 1(3) is different from that contained at the beginning of Part II in Clause 29(3). In Clause 29(3)— —
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will forgive me. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend on the Front Bench have agreed to take Amendment No. 9 separately, I shall not comment on Amendment No. 11 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, until we have dispensed with the rest of the amendments in the group.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: This group of amendments deals, first, with the various related definitions of "environment", "pollution", "harm" and so forth, contained in Clause 1. They are not easy concepts to define, even in the abstract. When, however, they are required as the basis of a sophisticated and what has to be a tightly drawn system of regulatory control, the difficulties of getting them right are even greater.
The requirements of the Bill have to be paramount, which is why we have found it impossible to provide single, unified definitions which apply throughout the Bill. The overriding requirement is definitions which work for, and meet the needs of, each separate part of the Bill. It is for that reason and not because of any inherent confusion in the Bill, or any confusion inherent following its passage through another place, that different definitions are required for different parts of the measure.
We have done much to improve the definitions in each part and to enhance consistency. In other cases, we have discovered, attempts to graft on to one part concepts which had been thought out for the purposes of another part would not have worked in practice. I ask the Committee to bear that fact in mind as I turn to the definitions that we are now discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seeks to amend the definition of "environment" contained in subsection (2). We do not see an advantage in substituting "elements" for "medium", despite the noble Lord's eloquent plea. The word "medium" is important to the drafting of the Bill since we are dealing with releases of pollutants into a medium through which pollution passes, into which it enters and from which it leaves and in which one could perhaps say it is distilled. The word "elements", albeit more literary, would have unfortunate chemical connotations which would lead to confusion in the Bill. Also, as my noble friend Lord Balfour said, what happened to fire?
Perhaps I can deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas in respect of Amendment No. 13. Smoke and smell could not be held to constitute harm unless reference to "offence to the senses" was retained in the Bill. If it were removed a major loophole in the controls would be created. The subjectivity which my noble friend regretted is no more than the element which has existed for

781
many years in controls of statutory nuisance; for example, with regard to smoke, dust and so forth.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, include one which relates to the definition of the environment. It relates not just to the three physical media but to the living environment they support which is to be part of the definition of environment. It is reasonable to claim that living organisms form part of the environment. I can reassure the Committee that the effect of all the definitions in Clause 1 taken together is to secure the protection of the living environment, not just the physical one. To include that point within the definition would complicate matters.
Part I is drafted so as to secure the control of releases to the environment. Every release must be to one part of the environment. However, can one release substances to "a natural environment" independently from a release to air, water or land? If so, the amendment risks creating a loophole in the control system. If not, it would be unnecessary. Equally, I do not see how the concept of the "physical environment of buildings" would add to the definition. I can reassure the Committee that harm to property and pollution of the air within it are fully catered for.
There are dangers in tinkering with definitions. For example, subsection (3) refers to organisms supported by the environment, but the effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be to define those organisms as part of the environment. That is a small point of detail, but those definitions depend upon careful drafting and for that reason I cannot recommend them to the Committee.
Perhaps I could consider briefly the other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, seeks to incorporate in the definition of "pollution" in subsection (3) something extracted from a similar but not identical definition contained in Part II. That would represent a significant weakening of the regime in Part I. That allows specifically, where necessary, for the complete elimination of any release. That degree of control is central to Part I, and the Government could not accept any weakening of it such as would result from restricting the definition of pollution in this way.
In Part II, the situation is different. The duty is simply to prevent pollution. Without the qualifying concept of, "the quantity of concentration involved" in that instance, no one would be allowed to dispose of any wastes at all. However, in Part I, any release of any substance should potentially be caught within the framework of controls, no matter what the quantity of concentration.
As to the proposed amendments to the definition of "harm", I have to say that I see no need to add "well-being" to the concepts of health and offence. To specify unnecessarily hinders rather than helps.
On aesthetics, it could be argued that if a release was offensive to man's senses then it must be offensive to his aesthetic sense. However if the noble Lord has in mind in his amendment only visual aesthetics, it is no part of an IPC inspector's
782
remit to consider whether or not a factory is visually aesthetic. Nor do we think that it could be made so. His powers are confined to protecting the environment through controlling releases. I can also give reassurance that there is no need for Amendment No. 22 since buildings and other structures are automatically covered by the use of the word "land".
Amendment No. 23 seeks to ensure that unauthorised releases to sewers are not exempted from control by virtue of the contents of sewers being defined as outwith the definition of the environment. This amendment too is unnecessary. Any release to a sewer or otherwise which contravenes the terms of the authorisation will be an offence. There is no need to prove that pollution has occurred.
The second main target of these amendments is the definitions of "process" and "prescribed process". Turning to Amendments Nos. 15 and 21 which deal with mobile plant, it is essential to place beyond doubt that authorisations can be granted to mobile plant such as roadstone coating plant and mobile incinerators which might otherwise need a fresh authorisation each time they were moved.
We do not understand the reason for seeking to delete the definition of "prescribed processes" in Amendment No. 16. It is a fundamental building block of the system. Part I controls can only bite on prescribed processes. It is a complex and exacting system designed to ensure that those processes with major pollution potential are effectively controlled. However, it is not appropriate to all activities. The vast majority of activities cause little environmental impact so we can rely on the statutory nuisance system streamlined in Part III.
Noble Lords opposite also wish to delete reference to industrial or commercial activities in the explanation of which processes will in the main be prescribed. That is in Amendment No. 17. Although the Bill allows wide scope for the prescription of appropriate processes, it is clear that the system is most appropriate for industrial and commercial activities with major pollution potential.
Finally I turn to Amendment No. 139 which relates to Part II of the Bill and is concerned with mobile plant. I wish to stress that we are dealing in Part II only with plant for treating waste: mobile incinerators, and so forth. We are not concerned and nor is the Bill with controls on vehicles for transporting waste. However, the effect of the amendment would be to give WRAs a responsibility for licensing the transport of waste. That is already the responsibility of the Department of Transport. The noble Lord's amendment would therefore only cause confusion as to which should do what.
The Bill is right as it stands. The treatment of waste by mobile plant is caught under Part II of the Bill and the transport of waste is caught in existing legislation. I hope that I have been able to persuade noble Lords that there is no case in practice for these amendments.
The Earl of Halsbury: I apologise for arriving in the middle of the debate on the amendment but the Committee dealt with Amendments Nos. 6, 7

783
and 8 rather quickly. I therefore failed to arrive here in time.
I ask the noble Lord to reconsider the wording of the Bill. Without reference to concentration, the provisions could be nonsense. We are all accustomed to have a little salt with our food, particularly fish, for instance. However a salt cellar full of salt would be a lethal dose if one could get it down. That would not be possible because it is an emetic and one would sick it up again. Unless there is some reference to concentrations, the clause seems to be nonsense. My noble friend may not press the matter to a Division, but perhaps the Minister dealing with the Bill might give a promise to examine the references which may involve concentrations in Clause 1(3). It is difficult to explain, but one would find one part per million of arsenic in almost any substance one chooses to test. It is widely distributed material. What is present in a substance entirely depends on the sensitivity of the method of detection. Radioactive substances can be detected, we can listen to single atoms popping off one by one. However, if this happens at the rate of only one every few seconds, it will do no harm. For this reason, some amendment to the clause is necessary for fear that some officious bureaucrat would interpret the wording too literally. He might rule the compositon of certain water out of order because the water contains every mineral from every lump of granite that it has flowed over from the time when it was a spring at the top of the Grampians. This is merely an encouragement from a professional chemist to the Minister to take the Bill away and reconsider the wording.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the detailed reply which deserves much more careful study than I am able to give on a single hearing. I shall certainly not attempt a textual analysis with the noble Lord.
The only comment he made that leaves me with a profound feeling of unease is the unwillingness to extend definitions so that they would cover the internal combustion engine. I do not believe that it is enough to say that the subject is dealt with under other laws and that it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. If we do not cover pollution from the internal combustion engine in this Bill we are missing out what everybody understands to be a most significant element of pollution. It would not be generally understood why it is omitted other than simply for reasons of departmental boundaries. The noble Lord's arguments deserve attention. If necessary we shall come back to the matter at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 9.
Page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) "Pollution of the environment" means pollution of the environment due to the release or escape from any process (into any environmental medium) of substances or articles constituting or resulting from the release, and capable (by
784
reason of the quantity of concentrations involved) of causing harm to man or any other living organisms supported by the environment.").
The noble Lord said: It is not necessary for me to go too far on this matter because my noble friend the Minister answered the problem in part when he addressed himself to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The substance of the amendment was discussed during Committee stage in another place. At that time, the Government promised to re-examine the definition on report in another place. However, nothing further was said or done. The subject has therefore been introduced again here.
The amendment deals with the point which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, made. It introduces a quantitative statement into the definition of "pollution" in Part I of the Bill. This was the point raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Nathan in Amendment No. 11. It seems to me that for those reasons and the reasons that I described earlier, the definition should be reconsidered. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about an environmental medium. In the light of the reply of my noble friend to the series of amendments, we shall have to see how that concept comes out in the wash. However, it is important that the definition in the early part of the Bill should be quite clearly understood by all those who are going to be affected by it.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that the definition as set down in the Bill will do very well for Part I. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, spoke about consistency. I was going to mention that also. Clause 29 on page 28 of the Bill quite clearly uses precisely the same terms as my amendment. It states on line 14 of page 28:
"substances or articles constituting or resulting from the waste and capable (by reasons of the quantity or concentrations involved) of causing harm to man".
For goodness sake! There has to be some consistency throughout the Bill. The Minister cannot tell the Committee that Part I of the Bill will be treated in a certain way, while another part of the Bill will be treated in a totally different way.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a remark with regard to internal combustion engines. This is a Bill about pollution. It is not a transport Bill. The way internal combustion engines may be dealt with in transport legislation has little to do with this Bill. It is important that we keep the definitions in line.
The Minister also said when he was talking to an earlier series of amendments that there was a great danger in tinkering with definitions. There is only danger in tinkering if definitions are correct. In this case, I suggest to the Committee that the definition is incorrect for the reasons that I have described. That adds inconsistency throughout the Bill and poses a great danger. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 or 11.
Lord Reay: This amendment overlaps with the matter that we were dealing with in the previous amendment. My noble friend Lord Lucas takes over a point which we were discussing; namely, the different definitions of pollution in two parts of the Bill. That matter was also taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who raised the matter of concentrations. As I understand it, there is no reference to concentrations in Part I of the Bill where it is essential to bring all pollution, irrespective of its quantity or degree of concentration, within the framework of control. There is a reference to concentrations in Part II of the Bill which deals with solid wastes on land. Clause 29(3) makes it plain that the quantity and concentration of the waste concerned are relevant.
I have already indicated in response to the previous group of amendments that a definition of pollution modelled on that in Part II of the Bill is not suitable for Part I. I argued that such a definition would introduce an unacceptable weakening of the Part I regime by introducing the concept of controlling releases which pollute for example, by reason of quantity or concentration. I ask my noble friend to accept that the regime in Part I must be allowed to extend to any releases and any substances, whatever their quantity or concentration. If necessary, a release must be prevented.
The amendment incorporates the notion of "release or escape" whereas Part I of the Bill is drafted on the basis that there is no difference between an intentional and an unintentional release. The separate concept of escape does not therefore exist in Part I in contrast to Part II. The amendment refers to a release of substances,
"constituting or resulting from the release".
That is not a concept that we could live with happily. If I may say so, it is the result of attempting to force a Part II definition into Part I. In the light of those remarks and those difficulties, I ask my noble friend to consider whether the existing definition is not preferable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My noble friend has given a number of explanations. However, he may recall that I did not define either quantity or concentration. I merely drew attention to those factors largely for the sake of consistency. Whether or not the Government could live with the words,
"or resulting from the release",
is not, I suggest, overly important. That is a technical point.
I do not propose to abandon this matter because I believe the arguments that I have proposed which have been supported by other Members of the Committee constitute the right way forward. I shall want to give further consideration to what my noble friend has said, and I may well wish to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 17, after ("capable") insert ("by reason of the quantity or concentrations involved").
The noble Lord said: The Minister has not adequately dealt with this matter. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, under the definition in the Bill pollution of the environment means,
"pollution of the environment due to the release (into am environmental medium) from any process of substances which are capable of causing harm to man".
The release of substances may cause harm to man or living organisms at different concentrations, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said. Let us suppose for instance that under the terms of an EC directive there is a limit, for example five parts per million, beyond which one cannot go. The assessment of that amount has been made on the basis that at that concentration no harm will arise. However, if one states that there is to be a release of a substance which can cause harm, there could be a power under this provision by which even at less than five parts per million—ex hypothesi that could not cause harm—a prohibition could be granted on the ground that the words which appear in my amendment have not been inserted. It is therefore by reason of the quantity or concentration involved that harm can arise. I ask the Minister to reconsider the point which I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not see where the difficulty arises. As the Minister has said, surely in order to bring any possible discharge into consideration it is necessary to have the widest possible definition. Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State issues regulations which establish whether or not to apply the definition to a particular concentration. He may well be guided by the EC regulations. Clause 3(2) states specifically:
"Regulations under this subsection may—
(a) in relation to releases of any substance from prescribed processes into any environmental medium, prescribe standards for any of the following matters, namely—
(i) limits on the concentration".
I believe the matter is perfectly adequately covered by the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, does not feel he is tarnished by my support. The experience with the Water Bill last year in which we provided general control of pollution and then sought to specify that in more detail, sometimes by reference to the European Commission, showed that was the right approach. Therefore, I think the Government's approach is right.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If my noble friend Lord Crickhowell is right, the Minister must be wrong, because the Minister says that we cannot tinker with the definition as set down in the earlier amendments in Part I of the Bill because it would leave a loophole were we to embrace the definitions in the later parts of the Bill to which both the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and I have referred. My noble friend then says "But we can cover up that deficiency by utilising the powers under Clause 3", that is the regulatory powers. It seems to me that if we have the powers to determine the various concentrates, quantities and qualities in Clause 3, we might just as well have precisely the same pattern in Part I of the Bill in defining pollution, as I suggested earlier.
The Earl of Halsbury: Perhaps I may intervene again. If one takes the case of carbon dioxide, which is a poisonous substance, all of your Lordships, including myself, are emitting carbon dioxide continuously. If we rise to speak our output of carbon dioxide goes up. If we were internal combustion engines there would be a demand to put us under control, as there is demand for such control all over the world at present. All I am suggesting is that we should not draft legislation in such wide terms that without reference to concentrations it will end up by looking silly, especially if it gets into the wrong hands.
Lord Reay: Perhaps I may briefly restate our position as I see it. There are two definitions of pollution, one in Part I and one in Part II. They differ in several respects. For example, as I mentioned earlier, in Part II there is a reference to release or escape, whereas there is not in Part I. There is also reference to substance or articles, whereas there is not in Part I. But the difference that we have concentrated on is that there is a reference to the quantity or concentrations involved, whereas there is no such qualifying description applied to pollution in Part I. The reason for that is that we do not wish pollution to be qualified in this way because it would restrict pollution that we feel should come within the scope of the pollution controls in Part I. That is our position.
Lord Nathan: There has been a fairly full debate on this matter, with very expert assistance from the Earl of Halsbury, the chemist, and others, and I do not think that this is the time to pursue the matter further. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 18 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3. line 4, leave out from ("exercisable") to end of line 6.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 19 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 51, 53, 54 and 56 which stand in my name.
We return here in a more modest form to an issue which was debated earlier this afternoon about the proper role of central and local government and the proper way of ensuring that central and local government together, through co-operation, achieve the range of resources and powers which are necessary to achieve the control of environmental pollution and, indeed, protection of the environment.
As the Bill is drafted, the role of local authorities in Part I—and I apologise for reading again from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—is extremely limited. It provides for
"a parallel regime providing for local authority control of air emissions from a second tier of less polluting processes,"
Therefore, all other forms of pollution fall to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Much as I regret it, we are not going to have an environmental protection executive, so we have to deal with Her
788
Majesty's inspectorate of pollution which is supposed to carry out these functions.
It is true that 30 additional staff have been authorised for HMIP in the last 12 months. It is also true that the Bill estimates in the manpower provisions that there will be necessity for another 15 staff in HMIP, but these are very small numbers indeed if the responsibilities under Part I of the Bill are to be taken seriously. I should have thought that the entire extra manpower available to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be taken up with applications for authorisation and with looking at the inspection and monitoring of only the most serious polluting processes. It is difficult to see how an inspectorate with that kind of staffing could deal with very much more.
The fact of the matter is that at present the local authorities do much of the leg work for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. They produce the examples of pollution which have to be controlled and they take the first steps towards monitoring pollution. It is not limited, as the Bill provides, to a second tier of less polluting processes. The local authorities are all over the country. They have the ability, and I would suggest that they should be required to look at all aspects of air pollution including the more serious processes, rather than there being this arbitrary division between HMIP and the local authorities.
Indeed, in the consultation process which is now going on leading up to the White Paper in September, I think the Minister will confirm, because I do not think that these things are secret, that the local authorities in their evidence have been saying very clearly that they want to be involved; they expect to be involved; and they are prepared to take the responsibility to be involved.
Without going into each one of the amendments in detail, they remove the barriers which exist in Part I which prevent local authorities from taking on a broader role in relation to integrated pollution control. I suggest to the Committee that the effect of passing these amendments would be to have a wholehearted co-operation between local authorities and Her Majesty's inspectorate which would be to the benefit of all of us. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Reay: These amendments seek to give local authorities integrated pollution control powers rather than just control over air pollution. Integrated pollution control is a new concept in international environmental control and represents a major development for both industry and regulators. It will not be an easy task to determine the best practicable environmental option for processes with significant pollution potential, even for the central inspectorates with their experience of sophisticated engineering control techniques or for those industries which are familiar with the current requirements of best practicable means. It is therefore not something that could be easily and rapidly be taken on by local authorities or by the industries of which they are to take control, starting as they do from a lower base line of technical process experience.

789
Therefore, we believe that we should proceed incrementally, building the knowledge that will be gained in the sectors falling within HMIP's control under Part A of the schedule.
Local authorities already have a major task ahead of them in expanding their relatively limited role of stopping air pollution nuisance into the substantial, proactive role they will take on for authorising all releases to one medium. We believe that we should not make their job too large at the outset.
Moreover, the industries that will form the Part B list for local authority control do not offer the same opportunities for transferring a release from one medium to another. They are basically primarily of concern in relation to their emissions to air. There is therefore much less need for integrated control over releases to land or water. In so far as there are releases to land and water, do we really want to remove the responsibility for control of such releases from the National Rivers Authority and waste disposal authorities? We do not believe so. We believe that the split of responsibility in Part I is right. HMIP will develop the complex new system of integrated pollution control. Local authority environmental health departments will impose significantly tighter controls on potential air pollution from less complex processes with smaller potential for cross-media pollution transfers. It will be time enough to consider more extensive powers for the lower tier when we see how those developments have worked out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that the most extraordinary answer and I suspect that local authorities will too. I almost pass over, although perhaps I should not, that statement that the Minister made in the early part of his reply in which he said in effect that environmental health officers are all very well but that they are not capable of dealing with technical matters; that those matters are far too complicated for people who live in Bristol, Aberdeen, Birmingham, or wherever it may be; and that such work can only be done by the real experts sitting in Marsham Street.
If I were an environmental health officer, I would find that deeply offensive and rather inaccurate, bearing in mind the fact that local authorities have been the environmental protection agencies for 150 years. Again, I do not attack Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, but I remind myself that it was formed by the bringing together of a number of pollution control agencies. I also remind myself of the constant complaints of the Factory Inspectorate; namely, that is was not able to cover more than a tiny proportion of the cases of pollution reported to it. That must still be the case.
I shall not pursue this matter now, but I shall come back to it on Report. I shall consider it in more detail and challenge the Government in more detail about the staffing levels of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution; the number of premises it will be required to inspect; the number of times per year, or perhaps per decade, that it will be able to carry out such inspections; and the way in which it will have to deal with the cases of pollution that are
790
brought to its attention by local authorities. I shall ask the Government to show much more clearly than they have done now that the existing provision at central government level is sufficient to justify those restrictions on local authorities. I do not cast aspersions on the National Rivers Authority or on the waste disposal authorities. The amendments do not deal with them. We seek to take away restrictions on the activities of local authorities. I shall return to the matter at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert ("(which in this Part means a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951)").
The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting amendment. There is already a definition of river purification authority in Clause 30 of the Bill, but that applies only for the purposes of Part II. It would be inconsistent to have a definition in one part of the Bill but not in another. The amendment removes that inconsistency by inserting into Part I of the Bill the same definition of river purification authority as appears in Part II. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps my noble friend will explain a little more slowly what he has just said about the same definition in both parts of the Bill. I am sure that that is what he said. Perhaps he will explain to the Committee why that argument is good enough for this amendment but was insufficient for previous amendments.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: So far as I understand it, this amendment refers to Scotland. Originally, Scotland was not dealt with in Part I of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert:
("(13A) An Environmental Efficiency Commission shall be established and shall determine a code of good environmental practice as set out in Schedule (Environmental Efficiency Commission) to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: We have already run over this course a little this afternoon. I shall therefore say at the outset that I do not intend to divide the Committee on the issue; nor would I be allowed to by the Clerks as I have been advised that this is a hybrid amendment and that I might be in some difficulty if I did.
The proposal was put forward in Committee in another place. I wish to bring it forward now because it has found favour with many outside bodies which are submitting evidence to the Department of the Environment on the proposals in the White Paper. The commission that we suggest should be established would have two useful functions. First, it would act as our conscience on the environment and would be the best informed body about the state of action and policy on the environment. Secondly,

791
it would be the spur to improve environmental standards across the range of public and semi-public organisations. We have set it out in great detail. What we think should happen is at least on record.
Members other than myself have received copies of evidence to the Department of the Environment from many outside bodies such as Wildlife Link, which covers 43 NGOs—non-governmental organisations, for those who do not know what that means—the RSPB and the CPRE. Most of them have approved the evidence submitted.
In that evidence we call for an environmental audit. The Nature Conservancy Council thinks that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution should be an independent body outside the control of the Department of the Environment. In a very good document, the CPRE calls for an environmental protection commission. It calls for the establishment of a new, independent environmental protection commission which should be a UK body of complete independence and stature, modelled on a much strengthened Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution or, in the financial sector, the Audit Commission which was set up by the Government to oversee local government expenditure.
Incidentally, it thinks that on the whole local government spends its money far more wisely than central government, but it is no good repeating that in this Chamber as it is always met with total blankness. We spend an extra £60 million on our submarines, but no one seems to question that. A sum of £60 million would cover the budget of the Isle of Wight County Council for a whole year. However, that is what we who still believe in local government try to argue. The bodies to which I referred are generally respected in the community.
An organisation of that kind will have to be established in due course. It is a great tragedy that it cannot be done now because there will be further reorganisation over the next two or three years. It might have been better if we had waited a little longer and got it right in the first place. That is one of the arguments that we put forward with regard to the NCC. We should think of the individuals employed in HMIP who may well have to move on to other bodies or be moved around the country or promoted or demoted according to the body with which we finish up to oversee environmental problems.
As I said earlier, I do not intend to divide the Committee on the issue, but I should be interested to hear a few comments from the Minister upon it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to establish an environmental audit commission was made in another place. On that occasion, the amendment was a probing one.
Efficiency in any field, be it environmental or industrial, is obviously something to be applauded, so it is perhaps not surprising for the noble Lord to discover that I agree with several of his points. However, I question his solution. I am sure that the noble Lord does not seek to make the point that our
792
record is one of environmental inactivity. Government departments are making much progress in greening their in-house working practices, for example, through the use of recycled paper products. My department has completed the type of green audit sought by the noble Lord. We found it a very useful exercise, but I would not wish to force it on others. It is widely recognised that environmental audits work well only when there is a commitment to them from the senior management of the organisation. What concerns me is that the commission proposed by the noble Lord would be seen as an unnecessary interference. Far from promoting environmental attitudes, it could cause resentment.
The new schedule also extends to cover the activities of local authorities. That may be all fine and good. I speak for myself and not for the local authorities, which will doubtless have a view. I have a sneaking feeling that, however noble the sentiment, it would not exactly be the work of a moment to get all that off the ground.
The Committee may have noticed that the list of bodies which would be subject to examination under the new schedule does not extend—although there are one or two exceptions—to industry. The schedule therefore creates a bureaucracy to police other bureaucracies.
I sympathise with the underlying objectives. Whether one thinks in terms of formal and statutory green audits or simply an entirely informal new way of thinking, I am sure that all bodies—by no means government departments alone—have much they can profit from in this area. Increasing numbers of people are realising that. There cannot be many major industrialists who are not now seriously examining the benefits of environmentally friendly practices in the widest sense and adopting corporate environmental policies. They do not need a costly bureaucracy to lead them to the water, any more. I think, than do the bodies listed on the noble Lord's amendment. I can assure the Committee that these are matters to which we shall continue to pay the fullest attention, not least in the context of the forthcoming White Paper.
The noble Lord has already said that he will not be moving his amendment because of its hybridity aspects but I hope that he understands the position and where we stand in reply to it.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is on record and available. A study of our exchanges may help in formulating the environmental White Paper. The noble Lord may have noticed that I have on a green tie and there is a green handkerchief in my pocket—a suitable colour, I thought in which to be attired today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 2 [Prescribed processes and prescribed substances]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 19, at the end insert ("except a process to which section (Production, release and labelling of chlorofluorocarbons) below relates, with effect from such relevant date in the case of each process as is therein specified.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. Amendment No. 26 is an enabling amendment and Amendment No. 62 contains the body of what we want put into the Bill.
I envisage that the Government's objections will be twofold. First, they will say that the amendment should not form part of the Bill and that we should await the White Paper on the environment and any legislation which arises from it. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out that we are unlikely to see any further environmental legislation during the life of the present Government. Whatever happens after that will be too late: the need for action is urgent. I also envisage the Government saying that we mist await the outcome of the 1990 Montreal Protocol meeting. That outcome, in my view, is likely to be inadequate.
I shall not go through Amendment No. 62 in detail, The Committee will remember that I did so when I introduced my Bill on the abolition of CFCs. However, based on what came out of the 1987 Montreal Protocol and what is apparently likely to come out of the 1990 meeting, according to the draft protocol that is available, the danger from the increase of CFCs in the atmosphere is quite frightening.
It is said that close on 16 million tonnes of CFCs were manufactured between 1936 and 1986. Unfortunately it is expected that 8 million tonnes of production will have been added between 1987 and the year 2000. Obviously that is an unacceptable amount in view of the knowledge that we now have about the dangers to the ozone layer.
It is in fact a matter of political will. Other nations have taken unilateral action. In Sweden there is a timetable for abolishing CFCs in aerosols, and virtually all CFCs, by 1995 following legislation introduced in 1989. The legislation extends to other ozone depleting substances, including methylchloroform in solvents used in manufacturing processes. All new manufacture and sales of halons will be abolished by mid-1991 and there will be a complete ban on the use of halons by 1995. Norway will cut its CFCs by 90 per cent. before 1995. Australia's domestic policy includes a 95 per cent. reduction in CFCs by 1995 and their complete phase-out by 1998. Germany proposes to end the production and consumption of CFCs in 1995 and halons in 1996. In addition there will be a total ban on methylchloroform from 1992. So other nations are performing better than this country.
I should like to ask the Government what is their reaction under our commitment to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. The report of Coopers and Lybrand and Deloitte compiled for the Department of Trade and Industry on our performance at local authority level proves that we are not even fulfilling our obligations.
Out of 326 councils questioned about their programmes, only one-fifth had a programme at all. Ozone damaging chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons and halons are found in a wide variety of products. Out of 65 local authorities which have schemes in operation, most projects are aimed solely at domestic refrigerators with many authorities just collecting the machines. Only two authorities were found to be collecting, recovering and recycling refrigerator coolant and there were no authorities considering recovery and recycling of CFCs or halons from foam extinguishers or solvents. From the 261 authorities without schemes, about one-third said that they were planning to implement projects this year. Most of those again will limit themselves to domestic appliances.
A few authorities are planing to tackle industrial coolants. Of the rest, 43 per cent. said that they were considering or had rejected schemes on grounds of cost, administrative difficulties or uncertainties over the supply of refrigerators and demand for the service. The remainder would not yet appear to have considered whether or not to develop a scheme.
That is an indictment of what we in this country have done about the tremendous problem that faces us. It is a matter of political will. We must show that we have such political will. We must put our own house in order. We must be an example to the rest of the world. I have not even touched on the question of what happens when the third world starts using CFCs to a much greater extent. I do not believe that as a nation we can have an influence in the world unless we ourselves have performed our part.
I am particularly saddened by what appears to be the attitude of the United States to the creation of a global fund to help third world countries and enable them to sign the protocol. I believe that if we put our own house in order in the Bill our influence in the world and perhaps in persuading the United States to become active in the setting up of a fund, will save us from what will be an increasing problem. We cannot have that influence unless we put our own house in order. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: The trade name for CFCs is Freon. It is used extensively in refrigerators. Indeed, I do not believe that there is anything better on the market for the ordinary domestic refrigerator. It is still being manufactured for use in the ordinary home fridge/freezer. The advantage in using Freon in refrigerators as opposed to other products is that as a result of its process for making things cold, its pressure is below atmospheric pressure. Therefore, if air leaks into the system the Freon gas does not leak out. On grounds of the cost of manufacturing, I do not believe that there is an alternative. I admit that other materials can be used in many sprays. However, we must bear in mind that many of the other materials substituted in hair sprays and so forth are highly inflammable. A little care must be taken in that respect.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I support the amendment. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that we had a number of discussions when debating the Bill

795
relating to CFCs introduced earlier this year by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. In our final discussion on the Bill the noble Lord said that the Government had listened to what had been said and would take that into account. That led some of us to believe that although the noble Lord said that the Government would not give time for the Bill in another place they were willing to listen to the arguments that had been put forward and accept them when considering their Environmental Protection Bill.
I wish to make clear the fact that in the amendment there is no intention to detract from the Bill's effect. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me. In fact, it is our purpose to strengthen it. Since the Clorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill passed through all its stages in this Chamber the situation has become more urgent. Every release of scientific data shows that urgency. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Reay, read the briefing released yesterday by Greenpeace in preparation for the discussions on the amendments to the Montreal Protocol to be determined next week. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, pointed out, the briefing shows that if the original Montreal Protocol is allowed to go ahead as its stands the result will be a 50 per cent. increase in the release of CFCs into the atmosphere between the signing of the protocol in 1987 and the end of the century. No one who has read or listened to anything on the subject is prepared to face the prospects of what that will do to the ozone layer, which has already been damaged for years ahead.
In addition to the effect of CFCs, the noble Lord will recall that I drew to his attention and to the attention of Members of the Committee the fact that many of the substitute gases for CFCs have an effect on the global warming process that the human race cannot afford. Only a few months after the 1987 protocol was signed the signatories admitted that their agreement to a 50 per cent. cut in the use of CFCs by 1999 was inadequate to protect the ozone layer. Now we learn that the draft for 1990 will phase out the use of CFCs by the year 2000.
Last year the United States Environmental Protection Agency published its findings showing that the environmental needs of today require an urgent 100 per cent. cut in the use of CFCs if the ozone layer is to be protected. I believe that the Government recognise that finding as do Members on all sides of the Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and I and our supporters are putting forward an opportunity for the Committee to say that the British people recognise the danger to the ozone layer as being virtually scientifically proven—nothing is ever totally proven—together with the effect of that danger on humanity, on the ability of the planet to maintain the human race and on global warming. We must take a lead alongside other countries mentioned by the noble Baroness—Sweden, West Germany, Denmark, Australia, and so forth. I hope that the Government will take that opportunity and will be supported in Committee.
I am also anxious about the effect of what are commonly known as "market forces". If the noble Lord will read the report to which I have already
796
referred from the United States Environmental Protection Agency he will see that the United States estimated that the increase in the price of CFCs during the 1990s will net the chemical companies approximately 5.7 billion dollars. Since the passing of the Chlorofluorocarbons (Control) Bill through this Chamber it is no accident that there has been lobbying from commercial interests, in particular ICI, suggesting that CFCs are not as dangerous to the ozone layer as is generally believed by those who have read the scientific evidence.
Finally, I wish to stress the significance of the first line of Amendment No. 62. It states:
"The Secretary of State shall determine timetables to prohibit the production and use of".
The word "production" is particularly significant. We know that because of consumer resistance the sale of CFC materials in this country has been cut by one half. It is hardly any use to humanity for us to cut the use of CFCs in this country but then to export them to other countries for them to be released there. Therefore, the emphasis is on the abolition of the production according to those timetables.
I point out to the noble Lord who preceded me that as regards the commercial world in this country, there are advantages to be had from the new forms of technology referred to by the noble Baroness. I remind the noble Lord that during the debate on CFCs I brought evidence from the Bird group of companies which claims that in conjunction with the Germans it has developed a method for the decommissioning of refrigerators without the loss of any CFCs either from the coolant or the foam. I quoted from a letter from that group on the CFC Bill which stated that that group could not continue with that unless there was legislation because it is capital intensive. Legislation and financial support are needed for the local authorities to use that method of disposal on refrigerators. Only with that legislation could there be a prevention of the present disposal of refrigerators which releases a large percentage of CFCs into the atmosphere.
This Bill presents an opportunity for including in the Government's legislation timetables and clear powers by the Secretary of State which can put this country along with the leaders of those attempting to save our environment.
Lord Reay: The amendments address a subject of enormous importance. Depletion of the ozone layer is a problem of great consequence. The Government fully share the Committee's interests and anxieties and believe that they are tackling the question in a firm and effective way. I do not need to read the reports by Greenpeace or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or from any other source to appreciate the importance of the issue and the need for us to do all that we can as soon as possible to reduce and eventually eliminate that global threat.
Protection of the ozone layer is a global problem and requires a global solution. The Montreal Protocol provides the framework for the control of CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. The protocol requires CFC consumption to be cut by 50

797
per cent. from 1986 levels by 1999. In the UK we achieved that last year—10 years early. However, the protection of the ozone layer is a global problem and requires a global solution. It is pointless for us to try and go it alone. The United Kingdom is responsible for only a small proportion of the world's consumption of CFCs. The protocol is due for revision at the second meeting of the parties which we are hosting in London next week. The meeting of officials which precedes it has already started.
We fully accept that the protocol does not go as far or as fast as it should do. We have played a major role in setting the stance which the European Community should take in these negotiations. That stance proposes cuts in the production and consumption of CFCs of 50 per cent. by 1991–92, 85 per cent. by 1995–96 and a phase out before the year 2000. Those cuts are tougher than those proposed by any other country. We are also committed to phasing out halons by the year 2000, subject to provisions for any genuinely essential uses which may remain beyond that point. Carbon tetrachloride will also be phased out and we must make the steepest cuts possible in methyl chloroform. We are arguing for a 50 per cent. cut by the year 2000.
Therefore, the tenor of the argument of the noble Baroness that other nations are doing better than us is false. Members of the Committee like to trot out the example of Sweden but ignore the fact that there is an important derogation in Swedish legislation. In Sweden companies which still need to use CFCs after the date on which they are prohibited can apply for permission to do so. We cannot tell how much use will be made of that provision but the Swedish position on the phasing out of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol is very similar to our own, and therefore we might assume that the two regulatory approaches would give similar results.
Clearly, if the revised Montreal Protocol is not as strong as we should like, we shall need to consider those areas where we can make even faster progress. The European Commission has already proposed a new regulation, and this will form the basis of discussion after the protocol has been revised. We will seek to ensure that the EC regulation reflects the fastest cuts which it is possible to make, but I have to say that these will not go as fast as those set out in these amendments.
To get rid of ozone depleting chemicals we need to have substitute chemicals or technologies to replace them so that we can continue to benefit from medical aerosols, refrigeration, insulation foam, electronic equipment, metal cleaning processes and fire-fighting equipment, all of which need and use CFCs. New chemicals must be developed. The first of those is already on the way, with British industry playing a leading role.
However, the new chemicals need to be tested for toxic side effects and their own effects on the environment must be established before the chemical companies can build plants for their production and before the refrigeration and other industries can invest in the new equipment and processes needed to use them. That is a long process. To bring forward the phase-out date for CFCs will
798
not make it any quicker. The first of those should be ready for next year, but for others the process will take a great deal longer. For some applications proper toxicity testing and certification will take us close to the end of the century. For those reasons our own proposals for the elimination of CFCs do not go as far as those set out in these amendments.
One particular proposal gives the Government even greater anxiety. Subsection (1)(e) of Amendment No. 62 requires that any substitutes which damage the ozone layer, however slightly, or has a greater green-house effect than carbon dioxide, should have to be eliminated by the year 2000. This would seem to cover the CFC replacements now being developed.
I can think of no surer way to stop the development of these chemicals in its tracks. The new chemicals typically do either no damage to the ozone layer, or do only two to five per cent. of the damage done by the old CFCs. They do contribute to the greenhouse effect, but their contribution is typically only one tenth of that of the CFCs which they replace. The replacement of CFCs by these chemicals, at least until even safer substitutes can be identified, is therefore of great environmental benefit. This provision would stop that process, and make it impossible for us to stop using the far more damaging CFCs until well into the next century. More generally, it makes no sense to decide to ban those chemicals before we have any idea as to what is to replace them.
As I have tried to show, the Government have great sympathy with the objectives of this clause. Our aim is to reduce the emission of ozone depleting substances as quickly as possible. Our proposals for control of CFCs are the toughest of any put forward in the Montreal Protocol renegotiation. We are going as fast as we can, but it makes no sense to legislate for timetables which cannot be achieved. We cannot therefore accept these clauses.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I should like to ask the noble Lord three questions. First, why does he continue to repeat the canard which he has dragged up from the CFC debate about going it alone? We are not talking about going it alone. As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, certain countries in the world are setting the pace. The question is whether or not we should join them; and we are suggesting that we should.
Secondly, the noble Lord says that we have already surpassed the conditions for the Montreal Protocol and he speaks of a 50 per cent. reduction. Is he aware that that is a 50 per cent. reduction in use and not a 50 per cent. reduction in production? That is the point that I made concerning exports.
Thirdly, the noble Lord says that these are unrealisable objectives. I ask him again, as I did during the previous debate, whether he is saying that the British Government know better than the United Nations environmental programme that laid down those deadlines?
Lord Reay: I am glad that the noble Lord agrees with the Government that this is a matter which has to be tackled internationally. I can only repeat that

799
the proposals we are putting forward in the context of the Montreal negotiations, together with our EC partners, are tougher than those proposed by anyone else. Therefore I do not think that there is a sound basis for the complaint of the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Will the Minister answer my other two questions?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I am saddened by the response of the Government, particularly the answer the Minister gave which belittled what the country of my birth is attempting to do on this subject. He said that there are lots of derogations. I have studied the derogations and they are very tight. Even in our proposal there are derogations. We are not insisting that CFCs cannot be used in the treatment of asthma or for pain-relieving purposes. Derogations are inevitably necessary in treating certain conditions. But unless we have a timetable which is tight, the effort will not be expended in meeting it.
I am desperately concerned—as are many noble Lords in the Chamber—regarding the future if each nation has to wait until everybody around the world agrees. The only way to force agreement around the world is to set an example. I want this country to set such an example. I so move.
7.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Roskill, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Liverpool, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Borthwick, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Burton, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blyth, L.

Carnock, L.

800

Clitheroe, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Mills, V.

Colwyn, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mottistone, L.

Craigton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nathan, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norrie, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Radnor, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Erroll, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hesketh, L.

Hives, L.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Torrington, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Layton, L.

Westbury, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lyell, L.

Wynford, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Denham: I think this is the time for us to I adjourn. In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest to the Committee that we should not return to this Bill before 8.45 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Consumer Guarantees Bill
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Ewart-Biggs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I should point out that Amendment No. 1 is not correctly printed on the Marshalled List but that it is on the supplementary list.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
("Part I The Consumer Guarantee
For the purposes of this Act, a Consumer Guarantee is a guarantee whose minimum terms, as regards any product in relation to which it is given, are as follows—

801

(a) the guarantor will repair, or procure the repair of, any defect in the product unless the defect was caused by—

(i) misuse of the product by a consumer;

(ii) failure to maintain or service the product reasonably; or

(iii) an act or default of any person (not being the guarantor or a servant or agent of the guarantor), or a cause independent of human control, occuring after the product has left the control of the guarantor.

(b) if the product is defective, the guarantor will either—

(i) provide the consumer with the use of a comparable replacement product; or

(ii) compensate the consumer for any reasonable expenses and inconvenience arising from any loss of the use of the product,

if the guarantor does not repair the product within four relevant days (or in the case of a motor vehicle, two relevant days).

(c) in exchange for the product, the guarantor will either—

(i) pay the consumer a refund consisting of the sum paid for the product on its supply to the consumer and any related part exchange allowance; or

(ii) provide the consumer with an equivalent replacement product,

if the number of relevant days applying to the product (whether in respect of the same defect or two or more different defects) during any one twelve month period of the Consumer Guarantee exceeds twenty-one.

(d) the guarantor will provide these remedies free of charge, for a period of at least twelve months beginning with the date on which the product was first supplied to a consumer within the terms of the guarantee.

(e) the guarantor will be responsible for collecting the product from the consumer and returning it (or a replacement) to the consumer.

(f) the product shall be at the guarantor's risk from the time when he or his nominee receives notice in accordance with section 1(j) below until the time when—

(i) the product is returned repaired to the consumer, or

(ii) the consumer receives an equivalent replacement product, as the case may be.

(g) when making a refund or providing a replacement product under subsection (c) above, the guarantor may make a charge for use of the product, subject to the following conditions—

(i) the charge must be reasonable having regard to the nature of the product and all other relevant circumstances;

(ii) except in the case of a motor vehicle, the charge may be made only in relation to a Consumer Guarantee given for more than the minimum period of twelve months, and must be directly attributable to any use of the product after that period and not before;

(iii) in the case of a motor vehicle, the charge may relate to any use of the motor vehicle after the first six months of the Consumer Guarantee or after the first 6,000 miles of use.

(h) when making a refund or providing a replacement product under subsection (c) above, the guarantor may make a reasonable charge for any significant physical damage to the product other than damage resulting from fair wear and tear.

(i) if the consumer shows that the product was under or awaiting repair by or on behalf of the guarantor for any period of time, the period of the guarantee will be extended by that period of time.

(j) the consumer may notify a defect orally or in writing, and may do so either to the guarantor, or to any person the guarantor may nominate.

(k) "relevant" days applying to a product are days after the date of notification of a defect in the product up to and including the day on which the product is made available to the consumer after repair, not counting—

(i) any day lost for the purposes of repair as a result of the unreasonable behaviour of the consumer; and

802

(ii) any Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the United Kingdom where the product is to be made available to the consumer after repair.")

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the words as printed on the supplementary list. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13 and 14, all of which are consequential on Amendment No. 1.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, and I both said on Second Reading that we were unhappy that the Bill had come to this Chamber with a Long Title which mentioned consumer guarantees but that in the text of the Bill as drafted there is no reference to consumer guarantees. Therefore, I move this amendment, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes—alas, she is not able to be here because, as many noble Lords will know, she has had an operation—in order to put a consumer guarantee back into the Consumer Guarantees Bill.
The amendments to which I am speaking attempt to meet the objections raised by various government spokesmen when the Bill was discussed in another place. Perhaps I may recapitulate on the purpose of a consumer guarantee. It is designed to encourage non-price competition. The Committee may be aware that competition can take two forms—price competition and non-price competition. Price competition is easy to define. It is a question of whether goods are sold at price X, price X minus one or price X plus one. Non-price competition is rather more difficult to define. Nevertheless, the Committee will be aware that non-price competition can be just about as important as price competition. Non-price competition can be on after sales service. It can be on guarantees, as we shall discuss, or on quality.
This consumer guarantee, as I put it forward, is optional. I wish to stress that. There is no compulsion on any business to provide the guarantee contained in the amendments. It is a method of providing to the consumer a guarantee, if the producer of the product wishes to do so, which will give him confidence, in purchasing the product, that, if it is defective he can have recourse to a proper method of either repayment or replacement of the product.
Amendment No. 1 spells out the minimum terms of the guarantee if it is offered. Again, I emphasise that there is no compulsion on anyone or any business to offer the guarantee. Indeed, better terms may be offered by some producers. Alternatively, businesses may offer no guarantee at all. However, at least the consumer will understand that the guarantee, if it is offered, has the specifics which are spelt out in this rather long and, I am afraid, rather detailed clause which I have put before the Committee.
Amendment No. 2 is, I believe, unexceptional. It simply implies that product guarantees must be in writing rather than verbally, by implication, or any other form. Amendment No. 3 relates to the enforceability of guarantees. This is a somewhat complicated question and I do not want to weary the Committee in the dinner break for too long,

803
but clearly a guarantee has no effect unless it is enforceable. The amendment that I, together with the noble Baroness, put forward seeks to provide a method of enforceability which I believe will be acceptable to the Committee.
Amendment No. 4 recognises that the terms of the consumer guarantee may well have to be varied as time goes by. We do not know—perhaps we cannot know—what the effect of this will be and how it will operate in practice. Therefore, instead of requiring primary legislation to vary the terms of the guarantee—for example, modifying the minimum terms, determining the charge or requiring certain symbols or logos to be put in place if a guarantee is offered—Amendment No. 4 seeks to give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to that effect. Noble Lords will no doubt regard those powers as being unexceptional under normal parliamentary procedure.
Amendment No. 5 is the definitions clause. I draw the Committee's attention particularly to the definition of "product" which
"has the same meaning as in Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987".
As the Committee will remember from when we debated it as a Bill, that Act introduces the notion of product liability. It was introduced as a result of a European Community directive. The product that was defined by that part of the Act seemed to us to be the same animal, if I may describe it as such, as that which we shall be dealing with in terms of the guarantee that I have put forward today. The matter is very complicated. I do not want to weary the Committee with a full description of what is a product under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will have looked at that definition. Therefore, I can pass on from there.
Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14 are consequential on the main amendments about consumer guarantees. They simply spell out some of the drafting amendments that will have to be made to the Bill were the Committee to accept the major amendments. In sum, these amendments deal with the question of competition. It would be wrong if I tried to present them as being in some way evidence of consumerism. They are not. They are designed to make sure that a person who buys a product has the opportunity to know whether a product carries a guarantee; in other words, whether or not there is a quality guarantee. It is as simple as that.
Before I leave these amendments, perhaps I may reply to some of the points made by the Retail Consortium which, in general, is supportive of the guarantee, but there are one or two points on which it has some doubts. The first point is the time limit in paragraph (b) in the new clause. The Retail Consortium believes that the best guarantee that business is able to offer is one where if a new product is defective the consumer has no rights at all during the first fortnight that the product is in for repair. That view was rejected in Committee in another place.
The next problem is that of who collects the product which is referred to in paragraph (e) of the
804
new clause. That provision did not originally figure in the Bill presented to another place by my honourable friend Mr. Martyn Jones. Nevertheless, it was accepted by the Standing Committee in another place. We believe it is a sensible way to set about things.
Paragraph 1(f) of the new clause deals with the product at the guarantor's risk. Again, that was an amendment accepted by the Standing Committee in another place. I hope that the Committee will feel that what I call the slightly minor objections of the Retail Consortium can be answered in that manner. Nonetheless, I claim for the series of amendments no God-given right in drafting. If the Government were prepared to take these amendments away and, if necessary, re-draft them or consider how they might be more felicitously phrased, then I am sure that both I and the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, will have no objection at all.
It is time that the Committee decided whether or not the Consumer Guarantees Bill should have a consumer guarantee in it. It is in that spirit and, I hope, with the support from all sides of the Committee, that I move this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am advised by the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association, the CBI and the Retail Consortium. I take a somewhat different view of what it has said to me from that which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said was conveyed to him. I hope very much that this move to reinstate parts of the Bill that were taken out in another place will not be proceeded with.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, would reintroduce the consumer guarantee provisions that were withdrawn by the Bill's promoter in another place though with some modifications. There appears to be no attempt to reintroduce the list of specified goods to which the consumer guarantee applied and which was present in the Bill as originally published.
It has been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the offer of a consumer guarantee is therefore entirely voluntary and that there is no obligation on any producer of goods to offer the precise terms set out in these amendments. If that is the case, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has told us it is, then why bother to set out in legislation such detailed terms? In my view, these modifications do not alter my view that, voluntary or not, these provisions are unworkable and unenforceable. They would give rise to unnecessary conflict between consumers, retailers and manufacturers.
In that connection the Retail Consortium says that it fears that the terms of the consumer guarantees, as contained in these amendments, may be so onerous and impracticable that they will be offered by very few retailers or producers. The consumer guarantee would then risk confusing the customer who may have heard of it but does not see it offered. I think that the view of the Retail Consortium is essentially against these amendments as they stand whatever it may think about the consumer guarantee theory in general.

805
It is my firm belief that there should be fundamental statutory protection for consumers that applies to all products regardless of their type or character. There is already a basis in law for that protection in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which the Consumer Guarantees Bill, in its present form, sensibly seeks to amend. The Bill implements recommendations made by the Law Commission on the sale and supply of goods. I do not think that anybody is questioning the parts of the Bill which are not being amended with the amendments that we are discussing.
In seeking to reintroduce the consumer guarantee provisions originally in the Bill, the amendments now before this Committee would overturn important Law Commission recommendations and conflict with the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. They would establish what amounts to a new, long-term right to reject goods and a rigid statutory framework for a specific form of consumer guarantee without proper regard for well-established relationships between manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and consumers.
In addition, the amendments take no account of the inevitability of harmonisation of consumer guarantee provisions within the EC. It would seem that the government amendments before us will meet the noble Lord's first reason for introducing these amendments and, indeed, his closing reason; namely, that because the Bill is called a Consumer Guarantees Bill, it should contain consumer guarantees. As I see it, the government amendments will remove that title. The main purpose of his amendments is met if the Committee accepts the government amendments. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Williams, will not proceed with the amendment and that having aired the subject, he will feel that is sufficient for the day.
Lord Meston: I support these amendments. They take the law beyond that which is applied to the sale of goods. For example, they give protection to people who are given goods rather than having bought them. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, they introduce a voluntary scheme which should raise standards. I recognise these amendments as a well-meant modified version of what caused the Bill to founder in another place. I assume from government Amendment No. 8 that the Government are against these proposals. My only concern is about the practical politics of these proposals.
In producing the original Bill, the National Consumer Council incorporated the draft Bill of the Law Commission relating to the sale of goods. I would hate to see them lost. I would hate to see both the baby and the bathwater disappear. The proposals from the Law Commission have been around for a long time and will benefit the consumer and the non-consumer alike. The consumer guarantee and the law on the sale of goods are not mutually exclusive. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I disagree that they are in conflict; indeed, they complement each other. For that reason I support the amendments. I hope that the Government have thought again.
8 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for presenting the amendments so clearly. I very much regret the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I am sure that we all wish her a very good recovery from her rather serious back operation. However, the noble Baroness made clear her intentions in her Second Reading speech. Those intentions have been clearly reflected in the amendments before us and in the explanation given by my noble friend Lord Williams.
The points made by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, were very powerful. My noble friend made it clear that, although the changes would meet the concerns expressed by the Government both in this Chamber and in another place, nevertheless they would bring back the spirit of the original Bill which set out to produce guarantees for consumers. He also made the important point that there would be no compulsion on companies, which was a point of real concern to the Government. There is little doubt that the amendments would produce safeguards and protection which would be welcomed by many consumers. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was so clearly opposed to them. He said that he is advised by the Retail Consortium. He felt that there was no necessity for any greater protection for consumers.
The original Bill received an enormous amount of support from the public. In a poll conducted by the National Consumer Council 90 per cent. of those who were asked whether they would like protection against the ill-effects of buying shoddy goods said that they would like to have a consumer guarantee. The amendments do not reinstate the provisions of the original Bill but bring back the idea that has so much support from the public that people who buy shoddy goods should have some protection. That is of enormous importance. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: I regret the tabling of these amendments, which are a stripped down form of provisions which have already been rejected in another place. The sponsor of the Bill himself tabled the amendments to delete those parts of the Bill which related to consumer guarantees. I believed that he did so in a constructive spirit. I thought that, although he was understandably disappointed not to have the support of that House for the whole of his Bill, his view and that of his fellow Members of another place was that the remaining provisions, enacting the proposals of the Law Commissions, were of real value in themselves, representing as they do an extension to the rights of consumers. I was therefore profoundly disappointed by the tabling of these amendments which, if they are accepted, will serve to frustrate the progress of these reforms. Their sponsors should be well aware that they will not command the support of the Government in another place.
These new provisions would raise many fundamental issues of policy as well as basic legal and technical drafting points. The number of

807
amendments proposed to this Private Member's Bill in another place showed the difficulty in resolving against a tight time schedule the complex problems which arise.
The consumer's central concern is that a purchased product should be of a satisfactory standard and that, if it is not, he should be able to get satisfaction from someone. These cut-down provisions propose a statutory framework which offers him different remedies in different circumstances against different defendants in the manufacturing and supply chain. We would need to be persuaded of the wisdom of that appoach. The Government consider the Sale of Goods Act to be the proper framework for these issues. It covers all products and all consumer transactions and the consumer's rights do not depend on the presence or absence of a guarantee. Amendment to the Act as proposed in the Bill which is before us for consideration is the best way forward.
The core of the Government's objection to the former provisions on consumer guarantees was that they created a long-term right of rejection through the refund and replacement remedies in paragraph (c) of this first clause. Our concerns about this approach are on record. By providing, in effect, for full refunds for used goods it does not strike a balance between consumer and producer or supplier interests and it creates commercial uncertainties which would be reflected in higher prices. I acknowledge that the sponsors of this approach have sought to find a compromise with the Government in the amendments which have now been tabled. In particular, we welcome the fact that the provisions now before us no longer contain an obligation to state whether a consumer guarantee is given with certain products. However, the provisions still contain many significant defects and we remain sceptical about the merits of the approach as a whole.
Coming on to the detail of the first of the proposed new clauses, subsections (1)(g) and (1)(h) attempt to redress some of the imbalance in the long-term right of rejection approach. Paragraph (h) allows deductions for physical damage other than fair wear and tear. Paragraph (g) permits a reasonable charge in some circumstances for use but, other than in the case of motor vehicles, no charge can be made for the first year of the guarantee. In the case of motor vehicles, a charge may be made after the first six months or after the first 6,000 miles.
These provisions further expose the problems inherent in this approach. How would such deductions be calculated? What is to happen when there is a dispute between the consumer and the guarantor about whether the proposed charge is reasonable or whether there has been significant physical damage or, indeed, whether the damage has resulted from fair wear and tear? Faced with a large deduction for use or damage, the consumer could be left with the unenviable choice between a defective product that the guarantor cannot or will not repair and a partial refund which is too small to allow him to buy a replacement. This would dilute the additional benefits, over and above his sale of goods rights, that the consumer guarantee is intended to bring.
808
The proposed paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with the provision of replacement products in some circumstances. Paragraph (b) refers to a comparable replacement product and paragraph (c) refers to an equivalent replacement product. What is, or may be, a comparable replacement product, and how does it differ from an equivalent replacement product? That is quite unclear and this would inevitably lead to disputes and ultimately to a considerable amount of litigation. For example, if a new car is purchased and a defect becomes apparent after six months and the defect is not repaired in the specified period, is a seven-month old car which is bigger than the defective car to be regarded as a comparable replacement? Or is only a six-month old car of the same model as the defective one and with a similar mileage to be regarded as a comparable replacement? Is an equivalent replacement product more or less like the product it is replacing than is a comparable replacement product? Those questions are unanswered.
Statutory provision for a long-term right of rejection and the creation of new refund and repair remedies becomes very complicated in the case where goods are bought under finance agreements. This leads to complex situations involving three or sometimes four parties, and the unpicking of such transactions creates particular difficulties. The provision of refunds presents the problem about how to strike a fair balance between the claims and interests of the consumer, the finance company and the manufacturer. This is particularly true in situations where the balance outstanding on the finance agreement exceeds the original purchase price. Under certain finance agreements, title to the goods remains with the finance company and there are practical problems in devising mechanisms to ensure that the finance company's interests are protected. The provision of replacements also creates bureaucratic problems for the finance company, although these are arguably of a less fundamental nature.
The proposals on consumer guarantees considered in another place attempted to address that issue although, as we made clear, the Government considered that the provisions were defective. Nonetheless, resolution of these problems is essential to the approach on consumer guarantees which some Members of this Chamber have advocated. A considerable number of consumer durables are purchased under finance agreements. I am therefore not reassured by the fact that the present amendments remain silent on this difficult issue.
These provisions would create a dilemma for consumers who would have to choose whether to pursue their Sale of Goods Act rights against the trader or their rights under a consumer guarantee against the manufacturer. They also raise a number of fundamental legal issues such as the relationship between the consumer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act and those under the consumer guarantee. For example, the circumstances in which his exercise of rights under one regime cause him to lose, wholly or in part, his rights under the other are not addressed. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause appears to envisage that the consumer would retain

809
all his rights under the Sale of Goods Act even when he exercises his rights under the consumer guarantee, but it surely cannot be intended that he should be able to recover in full under both regimes.
I have one further point to make on Amendment No. 3, which relates to general provisions on product guarantees. It is not entirely clear what subsection (1) of the proposed new clause means. However, it appears to go further than to provide that a guarantee should be enforceable against the guarantor. It seems to be intended to provide that all guarantees with terms less than the minimum terms of a consumer guarantee would be enforceable against the producer and supplier jointly, even if offered by only one of them. Oddly, that would appear to require the buyer to proceed against both parties rather than allowing him to choose between one or the other. Whether or not that was the intended effect, it is an important departure from the general provisions on guarantees under the Consumer Guarantees Bill as previously drafted. Further, it is a point upon which there has been no public consultation.
I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee by commenting in detail on each of the remaining proposed new clauses which have been put forward in this group. They deal with the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations and with other definitions. However, because of the fundamental objections to which I have already referred, the Government cannot support this group of amendments.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am sorry that the Government feel unable to accept the consumer guarantee because I was led to believe that in another place they looked with some favour upon such a guarantee. Nevertheless, if that is their position, they will have to demonstrate it.
So far as concerns the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, if we are to have a consumer guarantee it seems to me that it would be better to spell it out. The noble Lord said that perhaps it was so complicated that no one would adopt it. However, if we are to have such a guarantee it should be specified and put into statute.
In regard to the long-term right of rejection, there is no question of the consumer guarantee overturning the Sale of Goods Act. Moreover, it does not conflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, with any Law Commission recommendations. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that it was somehow rejected in another place. However, 108 Members of that place endorsed the concept on Second Reading. I do not regard that as being rejection. The amendments which were moved in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Martyn Jones were designed to meet some of the objections which the Government put forward at that time.
I was very disappointed with this evening's debate. I must tell the noble Viscount that we thought—perhaps, in our innocence—that the Government might accept some modified version of
810
what Members of another place on all sides, and Members of this Chamber on all sides, believe is a sensible move forward. The noble Viscount has come out flatly against it. Therefore, I suppose that the payroll vote will simply march into the Lobby to express the view against it. However, they will have to march into the Lobby because we shall not let the matter rest. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that this is a matter of great importance upon which Members of this Chamber will wish to divide. I therefore propose to divide the Committee on the issue.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he agree with me that it is our invariable experience in this place that if we take a Private Member's Bill through—and I have been doing this for a long time, including the time when my party was in opposition—the best thing that can happen to it is that it is not amended in any way. This means that it does not have to be returned to another place. However, this Bill will have to be amended because of Amendment No. 8, and the other government amendments, and that is the minimum amendment required.
It has been my experience that whenever we send a Bill back to another place which has been amended in any substantial way—and this one will be—and the Government does not support the amendments, it has no chance at all. If the noble Lord seeks to put his amendments into the Bill now, he will destroy the sale of goods part of the Bill because that will go out as the baby with the bath water of the consumer guarantee. Therefore, in view of what my noble friend on the Front Bench said, will he not consider withdrawing his amendments at this stage so as to give the sale of goods part of the Bill a chance to live? He could then return to the matter later with the intoduction of a Private Member's Bill in this Chamber, or another place, which could bring forward the consumer guarantee feature, which I am sure he would like to see implemented, rather than include it in this particular Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I must say that I do not see why a Private Member's Bill entitled "Consumer Guarantees Bill" should not have a consumer guarantee within it. If the Government decide to sabotage the Bill, that is a matter for them. It is not for Members of this Chamber or of another place. It is for the Government to say that they will not let it through. The noble Viscount has been quite clear on the matter. He said that the Government will oppose it. That is the Government's problem; it is not a problem for this Chamber.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Product guarantees to be in writing
. Where any producer or supplier has given (by any means whatsoever) an indication that he is giving anything described by the word "guarantee" in relation to any particular product ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption (whether a Consumer Guarantee or not), the terms of the guarantee must

811
be in writing, must contain the name and address of the guarantor, and must be in, upon or attached to the product, or its labelling or packaging.")
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Enforceability of guarantees
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) where any producer or supplier had given (by any means whatsoever) an indication that he is giving a guarantee in relation to any product ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption (whether a Consumer Guarantee or not), a consumer supplied with the product shall be entitled to enforce the terms of the guarantee for the period indicated or in the event of a guarantee not being given the minimum terms of a Consumer Guarantee as if those terms constituted a contract between the producer and supplier jointly and the consumer.
(2) As against a person enforcing the terms of a guarantee (whether a Consumer Guarantee or not, and whether under subsection (1) or not), the other party cannot by reference to any such term or by notice exclude or restrict his liability, except in so far as the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
(3) To the extent that subsection (2) prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability it also prevents—

(a) making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions;

(b) excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy;

(c) excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure;

and (to that extent) it also prevents excluding or restricting liability by reference to terms and notices which exclude or restrict the relevant obligation or duty.
(4) Except as expressly provided by this section, nothing in this section shall be taken to limit, restrict or otherwise affect any right or remedy a person would have had if this section had not been enacted.
(5) For the purpose of this Act, anything which is likely to be taken for an indication that a product is covered by a Consumer Guarantee shall be deemed to be such an indication and shall be actionable as such, but expressions which it would be unreasonable to read as such (for example, "parts guarantee", "limited guarantee" or "warranty" by themselves) shall not amount to such an indication.").
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Power to make regulations
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Director General of Fair Trading and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult, by regulations make provision for—

(a) modifying the minimum terms of a Consumer Guarantee in relation to prescribed description of person or in prescribed circumstances so as to increase the obligations of, or impose new obligations on, the guarantor;

(b) determining the charge referred to in section 1(g) directly attributable to the use by a consumer of a product during a guarantee period;

(c) enabling or requiring prescribed symbols to be used to indicate that a Consumer Guarantee is being given or that no Consumer Guarantee is being given.

(2) The power to make regulations under this section—

(a) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and

(b) shall include power—

(i) to make different provision for different cases; and

(ii) to make such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.").

Before Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Definitions
.—(1) In Part I of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
"consumer" in relation to any product means—
812

(i) any person who is supplied with that product, mainly for his own private use or consumption

(ii) any person who derives title to that product through or under that person; but does not include any person falling within paragraph (i) or (ii) who is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

"guarantee" in relation to a product means any promise or assurance (however worded or presented) that defects in the product will be made good by complete or partial replacement of the product, by its repair, or by monetary compensation or refund or in any other way, and includes a Consumer Guarantee;
"guarantor" in relation to a particular product means a producer or supplier of that product who has stated that he is giving a guarantee in relation to it;
"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988;
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made be the Secretary of State;
"price" includes a charge of any description;
"producer" in relation to a product means—

(a) a producer of a product within the meaning of Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987; or

(b) any person who has imported a product into the United Kingdom from a place outside the United Kingdom in order, in the course of any business of his, to supply it to another from in the United Kingdom;

"product" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987;
"product ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption" shall mean a product of a kind of specification where the majority of products of a similar kind or specification are not purchased for the purposes of industrial or commercial processes;.
"reasonableness" has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977;
"supply" and cognate expressions shall have the same meaning as in the Consumer Protection Act 1987; and
(2) For the purpose of Part I of this Act a product is of defective quality if it is not of satisfactory quality within the meaning of section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Acceptance of goods and opportunity to examine them]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should remind Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16 and I must, inevitably, refer to Amendment No. 7 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. The latter amendment has essentially the same objective, except that it is to be reached by a different route.
This group of amendments raises the question of a right to reject defective goods and to claim a refund. The topic was raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the second star of those proceedings who is unable to attend the debate this evening. I shall try not to repeat all that was then said. The law provides that a buyer cannot reject goods, or get his or her money back, once

813
those goods have been accepted. One of the ways in which the purchaser is treated as having accepted the goods is by retention of those goods for a reasonable time, irrespective of what may turn out to be wrong with them. Thus one can lose the right to reject and the right to a refund before one has any idea that anything is wrong.
The case most often referred to, which of course was referred to on Second Reading, is Bernstein v. Pamson Motors Limited. The stark facts of that case are well known, but need repeating briefly for the purposes of the amendment. Mr. Bernstein was held to have lost the right to reject a new motor car in which he had travelled 140 miles only over some 27 days following the purchase. For some of that period he had been ill. He was held unable to reject, despite the sudden appearance of a serious mechanical defect, that being a defect which would not have been apparent to the layman. Mr. Bernstein wrote promptly to reject the car the day after it seized up.
On those facts the judge, who was clearly sympathetic to Mr. Bernstein, and presumably would have found in his favour if he possibly could, held that in law Mr. Bernstein was barred from rejection and from a refund. Mr. Bernstein lodged an appeal against that decision, but unhappily the matte' was never tested on appeal because the car manufacturer made him an offer which he could not prudently refuse. Regrettably, the Law Commission and the Government have decided that the existing law is satisfactory, not least because it is said to be certain.
I suggest that the law is not satisfactory to Mr. Bernstein and others like him who act promptly in trying to get back their money, and is not satisfactory for others who are perhaps more patient and conciliatory and try to give the seller the opportunity to put matters right. I also suggest that the law is not even certain in that respect, because the loss of the right to reject depends upon what a judge decides is a reasonable time. Different judges differ, reasonably, about what is a reasonable time. The judge in the Bernstein case said that what might be a reasonable time for the purchaser of a bicycle would not be the same for the purchaser of a nuclear submarine. I am aware of other cases in which judges have taken a more lenient view, as does the law in other jurisdictions. All that does not suggest certainty.
On Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred to a case in 1823 which concerned a chandelier retained for almost six months. That was a case called Milner v. Tucker. I venture to suggest that it is of not great relevance to the purchaser of a computer, or something like it, in 1990. He also referred to a case called Rogers v. Parish. more recently decided, in which the court allowed the right to reject a car after some 5,000 miles and six months. The Minister's reference to that case was confusing, because it was not a case of a straightforward sale but of a conditional sale, where the lapse of time is not a barrier to rejection.
If of course the Government intend to equate the law of hire purchase and conditional sale with ordinary sale, then I suppose that they support the amendment. If that is so, we shall have a better form
814
of certainty; but what I propose in the amendments is that time should run against a purchaser only when defects come to light. To give the purchaser in those circumstances a right to reject will spare the dissatisfied purchaser from litigation, it will spare him from having to deal with the seller over repairs after he has lost confidence in the seller; it will provide a simple and effective remedy; it will meet the reasonable expectations of the consumer; and it will raise and maintain standards.
At this stage I shall not take up further time ventilating the rival attractions of the amendments that I have tabled and Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I merely beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: As the noble Lord has said, the object of the amendments is to provide consumers with a long-term right to reject. Although I have sympathy with the thrust of the amendments they are unrealistic because, in practice, they will mean that the right to reject goods is indefinite or will at least exist for the six months allowed by the Limitation of Time Act.
The argument that the noble Lord has advanced is that the provision will equate the law of sale with that of hire. What the amendment fails to recognise is that the Sale of Goods Act applies to all products while only certain types of products are hired. That would give rise to a situation in which after five years the buyer of a product such as, for example, an apple could demand a full refund.
If the intention is to leave acceptance under the Bill to the common law rules of affirmation and waiver which govern the law of hire that should be expressed in the amendments. I am not convinced by the noble Lord's arguments and I advise the Committee to oppose the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall deal with the two amendments separately. The first provides, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, that the buyer would not be taken to have accepted goods, thereby losing his right to reject them, on the ground that he has retained them after a reasonable time without indicating to the seller that he has rejected them. The buyer would lose his right of rejection only when he intimated to the seller that he had accepted the goods or where the goods had been delivered to him and he did an act in relation to them which was inconsistent with the seller's ownership of the goods.
That is a fundamental change, which would affect both consumer and purely commercial transactions. In certain circumstances, the amendment could result in the buyer having the right to reject for a substantially longer period than under the present law. In their review of the law on the sale and supply of goods and services, the Law Commissions considered whether there should be a long-term right of reject in contracts of sale. Their conclusion, in the light of public consultation, was that there should not. They considered that the complications of introducing a long-term right to reject would be considerable. In their view, it would be unfair to require the seller to refund the purchase price to a

815
buyer if the buyer did not reject the goods until a long time after delivery, when he had already enjoyed the use of those goods for that period.
It would be extremely difficult to make statutory provision for the buyer to give some credit for the use and enjoyment which he had from the goods. Indeed, if I may quote from their report, the Law Commissions doubted:
"whether any meaningful principles or formulae could be devised which did not depend upon criteria so uncertain as almost to invite dispute".
They also believed that giving credit for use and enjoyment would take away much of the force of the consumer buyer's bargaining position. In their opinion, it was preferable to retain a rather shorter-lived right to reject with a corresponding automatic right to the return of the full purchase price. They pointed out that, particularly from the consumer's point of view, the absolute nature of the buyer's right is an important factor in his ability to bargain from his position of relative weakness against the seller.
I now turn to the second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, which deals with the changes to Schedule 2. The noble Lord's amendment would treat consumer buyers under outright contracts of sale in the same way as consumers under conditional contracts of sale in that the consumer buyer under an outright contract of sale would not lose his right to reject defective goods, even when he had accepted them. The consumer buyer would only lose his right to reject such goods when he became aware of the defect and then affirmed the contract or waived his right to terminate it or did some other act which precluded him in law from relying on his right to terminate it.
This amendment would very significantly alter the balance of rights between consumer buyers and sellers. It would mean that a retailer could be faced with a return of a product on the grounds of it being of unsatisfactory quality and would be obliged to return the full purchase price without consideration of the buyer's use of the product during the intervening period. The noble Lord said that in contracts of supply other than sale, the right to terminate a contract persists until the customer knows of the defect. However, this does not persuade me that the same should be true in the case of sale. The analogy is not as strong as it may appear at first sight. In the case of hire, unlike the case of sale, there is a continuing relationship between the parties. The goods still belong to the owner, who may be under an obligation to repair or replace the hired goods if they break down. Further, in hire there is a convenient method of valuing use and enjoyment: the hire charge itself can be taken as a basis for valuation. I am not persuaded that the difference in approach in contracts for sale and supply amounts to a justification for changing the rules in contracts for sale.
For these reasons, the Government could not accept these amendments which would very significantly extend the rights of consumers at the expense of retailers.
Lord Meston: I did not intend to suggest an indefinite time for rejection. With respect to the noble Baroness, her reference to the limitation Act was not correct. I doubt whether anybody would keep an apple for five years and then try to take it back to the shop. Perhaps that example demonstrates that the longer the right to reject is left, the harder it will be to show that the defect complained of was there at the time of purchase. However, if the defect was there from the outset and is serious and the purchaser acts promptly, why on earth should he not have his money back?
The Bill and the next Amendment No. 7 in better form depend on the reasonable opportunity to examine the goods. I am sure that I speak only for myself, but I could have an endless opportunity to examine a video recorder or the inside of a car or a computer and find no defects. I might find it difficult to discover even the most patent defect, let alone the latent defect which may cause trouble months or years after purchase.
Furthermore, I remind the Committee that the Bill introduces, in what was Clause 1 until the events earlier this evening, a consideration of durability. What will be a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods, to discover their durability? By definition, durability takes time presumably to discover.
I wish to find common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in this respect. I recognise that her amendment goes some way to meet my anxieties. I suggest that it does not deal as well as my amendment with the latent defects. But for the time being at any rate, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave so to do.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) Where the buyer deals as a consumer or (in Scotland) the contract is a consumer contract, the buyer is not deemed to have accepted the goods for the purposes of subsection (4) above until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment provides that a consumer cannot lose the right to reject faulty goods until he has had a reasonable opportunity to see whether the product works. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who said that, failing acceptance of his own amendment, he would support mine. He mentioned the notorious Bernstein case in which the judge allowed Mr. Bernstein an opportunity to examine the goods. However, as is clear, the Bill currently provides that the right to a refund can be lost, whether or not the buyer had had a reasonable opportunity to see whether the product is satisfactory. Therefore the position of the consumer has been weakened.
I remind the Committee of the Law Reform Committee recommendations which referred exclusively to consumer contractions: cases where a non-technical buyer has not had a reasonable opportunity to examine goods; cases where the product is sold in a sealed container. The recommendations stated:
"We are told … that the accuracy of a representation about the quality or construction of a motor vehicle is seldom apparent

817
from an inspection from a person who is not an expert, or even from a short trial run. No doubt similar difficulties occur on the sale of other articles of a mechanical or technical nature, where defects are unlikely to come to the notice of the uninitiated until some time after the sale is completed".
It is quite clear that the report of the Law Reform Committee wished this protection to be given to consumers.
Finally, if the Government oppose my amendment, perhaps they could advise the Committee of the circumstances in which they think a consumer should lose the right to reject faulty goods, even though he has not had a reasonable chance to see whether the product works. I stress that word "reasonable" because that involves an objective not subjective test. I beg to move the amendment and hope that the Committee agrees that it would make an important safeguard for consumers.
Viscount Ullswater: This amendment would change the acceptance provisions in the Bill. The present Clause 2 provides that the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods (and therefore to have lost his right to reject them) if he retains them after the lapse of a reasonable time without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them. The effect of this amendment would be that a consumer buyer would not lose his right to reject unsatisfactory goods on the grounds that he has retained them for a reasonable time unless he has had a reasonable opportunity to examine them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has said, there is some difference in view among legal experts about the position under present law. Some have argued that the lapse of time rule may be subject to Section 34 of the Sale of Goods Act so that however long the buyer retains the goods, he is not to be deemed to have accepted them until he has had a reasonable opportunity to examine them. Others, including the Law Commissions in their report, consider that this is not the case and that a reasonble time provides the final cut-off point under the present law.
I share with the noble Baroness the view that the law should be clear on this matter. It is in the interests of buyers and sellers alike to know where they stand in this important issue. We differ however on the point of policy as to whether a reasonable time (as provided in the Bill) or a reasonable opportunity (as provided by the amendment of the noble Baroness) should provide the final cut-off. In practical terms these will amount to much the same thing in the large majority of cases. It is difficult to imagine many situations in which the buyer will have retained the goods for any length of time without having had a reasonable opportunity to examine them. But I can envisage less common circumstances where the two approaches might lead to different results. For example, I wonder what effect the amendment might have in the case of a pair of skis bought during a summer sale and not tried out on snow until the following winter.
The amendment makes the law more subjective and acceptance less certain. It provides a different
818
approach to acceptance in consumer and commercial contracts. It is a substantive change and one on which there has been no opportunity for all the interested parties to examine and consider the point in more detail. There has been no opportunity for consultation on this point, but I understand that the Retail Consortium has some concerns about the effect of this amendment, which it has drawn to the attention of the sponsor.
The Law Commissions recommended that the law should state clearly that a final cut-off comes after a reasonable time has elapsed. In making this recommendation they said that it makes no change to present law. The DTI consulted widely on the Law Commissions' recommendations. Some consumer bodies have expressed concern that this provision would leave consumers without an opportunity to examine goods. I am very doubtful that this is the case. But the Government were mindful of the concerns expressed and proposed an addition to the Law Commissions' recommendations. That is contained in Clause 2(5), which makes clear that a reasonable opportunity to examine is relevant to the question of whether a reasonable time has elapsed. This would not preclude the court from reaching the view in a particular case that a reasonable time had elapsed even when the buyer has not had an opportunity to examine the goods. However, it would ensure that, when considering whether a reasonable time had elapsed, the court would positively address its mind to the question whether the buyer had had a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods.
The law should strike a balance between the interests of buyers and those of sellers, for whom commercial certainty is of importance. I remain sceptical about whether this amendment is justified and could not offer my support that it be made.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The Minister is not looking favourably on the consumer this evening. However, I am grateful to him for having taken so much trouble to respond to my amendment. We shall certainly reconsider the matter before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 34, leave out ("Parts I to IV of this Act or in any order under subsections (2) and (3)" (and insert) "Part I of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("Part V") and insert ("Part II").
Page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) This Act extends to Scotland but only Part I and this section apply to Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
In the Title:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is that this be the title of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not wish to detain the Committee for long but I wish to put on the record that the Committee has put back a consumer guarantee into the Consumer Guarantees Bill. I hope that when we have completed the remaining stages of this Bill it will leave the Chamber with the consumer guarantee still in it. It is now up to the Government to decide, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, quite rightly said, what they will do about the Bill in another place if it leaves this Chamber with a consumer guarantee in it. I say to the noble Viscount and to the Government in the clearest possible terms that if they do not make time for this Bill in another place they will be in contempt of both Houses of Parliament.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Environmental Protection Bill
8.47 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the date of Royal Assent publish a Schedule setting out—

(a) those processes in respect of which regulations have been made under this Part;

(b) those processes in respect of which it is his present intention to make such regulations;

(c) those processes of which the Secretary of State is aware, which may cause pollution within the meaning of this Part, but on which it is not his present intention to make regulations.

(1B) The Secretary of State shall revise the Schedule referred to in subsection (1A) above from time to time in accordance with regulations made and his current intentions").
The noble Lord said: It may be thought that this amendment covers to a considerable extent matters which have already been dealt with in debate this afternoon. That is because of a problem which Members of the Committee and Ministers have recognised. When general amendments are proposed at an early stage of the Bill to express our views it is difficult to avoid moving ahead and anticipating more detailed amendments which follow. Nevertheless I believe it is necessary for us to pursue this point in more detail than we were able to do previously.
The point of this amendment is to secure that the Bill is more specific than it has so far been about the prescribed processes and substances which come within the scope of Part I. The Bill is called an environmental protection Bill and it purports to cover breaches of environmental protection. However, as regards government publicity, it does not do so with much qualification. When one considers the detail of the Bill, one sees that the whole concentration and the powers conferred refer to prescribed processes.
This amendment does not seek to overturn that fundamental provision of the Bill but it seeks to bring it out into the open and to make it necessary for the Secretary of State to publish within six months of the date of Royal Assent a schedule which sets out the processes in respect of which regulations have been made and the processes in respect of which it is the intention of the Secretary of State to make regulations. The schedule should further set out which of the processes the Secretary of State recognises may cause pollution but for which he does not feel able to make regulations and for which he does not, at the time of the statement, propose to make regulations. There is no requirement that that should be done every six months. There is no requirement that there should be a vast bureaucracy dedicated to producing these reports. If the Government Front Bench give me that kind of reply, I shall treat it with little respect as I do not think that is the issue here.
There is a requirement in the Bill that the Secretary of State shall revise the schedule from time to time because clearly the prescribed processes which are covered in the Bill will vary from time to time and it is necessary for the public to know what variations are taking place. The Secretary of State will no doubt be making further regulations, and will be revising his intentions about which processes shall be covered. It is right that the public should know about it.
The whole point about integrated pollution control is that it covers the prior control of prescribed processes. Indeed, if it were not covering prior control—in other words if it were left to deal with fires as they occur rather than attempting to prevent them—there would be no justification for the whole elaborate procedure of prescribed processes. But since this is the way in which prior control is made possible, I suggest that the very least that we should be demanding is that there should be a common high standard of action by the Secretary of State, that this should be made public so that everybody knows what is being done, and that it should be capable of

821
being enforced by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and by the local authorities which, however downgraded they may be by being second order authorities, still have to respond to the challenges which are put upon them.
Let us not argue the fundamental principles of the Bill again, but let us recognise that the way in which it works is by effective control—"coming down like a ton of bricks" I think the Minister of State said in another place—of a limited number of prescribed processes.
If the Bill is to have any credibility, if there is to be any effective implementation which the public understands and to which the public and local authorities can contribute, I suggest that the minimum requirement is the publication of a schedule of what the Secretary of State is doing and plans to do.
There is nothing here which conflicts with the objectives of the Bill, nothing which seeks to extend the scope of the Bill. This is a proposal which is genuinely designed to be helpful and to aid the Government to achieve, successfully and effectively, what it claims to be seeking. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that this amendment is unnecessary. Well before the six-month period which has been set, details of the first two categories of processes specified in this amendment will have been published. The Government have already given clear indications—most recently in the draft schedule made available during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place—of the range of industrial processes that we intend to bring under Part I control. We have announced that we intend to publish draft regulations setting out the complete list of processes and substances by the end of July. We intend to publish the six-month regulations shortly after Royal Assent and certainly within the six-month period suggested. These will specify those processes which are to come under integrated pollution control and all of those which are to come, over a period of time, under local authority control for air pollution purposes.
So what is left? A requirement in Amendment No. 27 in paragraph (c) to list all other processes which may cause pollution "within the meaning of this Part". Any activity, even sleeping, causes pollution and very many activities release in small quantities the substances which are to be prescribed for particular control under Part I. Indeed, even those of us participating in the debate in this Chamber are, for example, emitting oxides of carbon. I fear that the environmental costs just of producing the paper for such an unwieldy publication would be excessive.
The point is that the Government will prescribe those processes which they consider need to be controlled under the rigorous powers available under Part I. And who can doubt in this era of enlightened environmental awareness that the scientific and environmental community will let us know if they consider that important processes have been missed?
For that reason, we believe there is no requirement for the amendment as put forward this evening in this Chamber.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that the Minister is taking an unduly narrow view, not only of what the amendment intends but of what the amendment actually says. I welcome the assurances which the Minister has given that there will be a full statement before the end of July about processes in respect of which regulations have been made and are intended to be made. That is extremely helpful since we understand that the Report stage of the Bill will be in October rather than in July. That will inform your Lordships' debates considerably, and to that extent your Lordships may be sure that we shall return to this matter.
As far as paragraph (c) is concerned, of course in theory it could be said that within the meaning of Clause 1 of Part I of the Bill all kinds of things including, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, standing up and speaking—it could be called the creation of hot air—is polluting. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is as guilty of creating hot air as any of us—he cannot escape that easily. There is no doubt that in terms of the processes which could be covered under the definitions in Clause 1 many things which should not be reported are covered, but the amendment does not say that. It says:
"cause pollution within the meaning of this Part".
As the Minister will be well aware, this part provides very severe restrictions about those prescribed processes which are to be covered by the Bill. It does not mean that any of your Lordships standing up or even sleeping—or perhaps doing both at the same time, which is not unknown in this Chamber—would fall under the provisions of this amendment. To that extent the Minister's arguments against paragraph (c) are defective and deserve to be rejected.
However, this is not a matter to be pursued to a Division at this stage. We shall have better information on subsections (1A) and (1B) at Report stage, and I can assure the Committee that we shall return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 4, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes regulations under this section to consult such persons appearing to him to represent persons carrying on a process that will be affected by those regulations and such persons appearing to him to be conversant with environmental pollution issues as he considers appropriate and to take any representations made to him as a result of such consultations before determining the final content of any such regulations.").
The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively simple and straightforward amendment. The regulations under subsection (5) will be introduced without parliamentary debate. Thus those in industries which might be involved in processes that cause pollution, as well as those groups which will be trying to monitor the effects of the pollution, will not be able to see what the regulations are, and will be unaware of the considerable effect that they are liable to have.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that those who are concerned in the processes involved are consulted, so that they know what is going on. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had agreed that we should take Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 together because they have a similarity. In fact, I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 32 in slightly more general terms, but not in any way deviating from the principle which underlies the noble Lord's amendment.
I have taken a rather wider view than the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in that the success which we all hope to achieve for this Bill will depend on the codes of practice. It would be sensible to ensure, even at this early stage, that the consultation is as wide as possible.
The success of any system will rely on the full understanding and co-operation of all those who are involved. If industry is to keep up with the rapidly changing field of environmental legislation and regulation it seems to me that consultation at all stages is vital.
When we discussed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross—Amendment No. 5—on what I might broadly call the environmental audit, my noble friend the Minister said that a full White Paper describing exactly what is to happen would be published in the autumn and that that would give an opportunity for wide consultation. That may be so, but, to underline what I am about this evening, perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that integrated pollution notes are already being prepared by the inspectorate.
The Committee will probably know that those notes describe the standards that are to be achieved. Discussions and consultation have excluded some major interests at this early and vital stage. I shall give only one example. In terms of the large combustion plants, the major electricity generating companies have certainly been consulted, but I am informed that the aluminium industry has not been consulted. An industry as important as the aluminium industry should be consulted. So the amendment seeks to ensure that, in making any regulations under the clause, the Secretary of State carries out the fullest and most proper consultation.
The amendment is similar to provisions incorporated in existing legislation. The wording of Amendment No. 32 is taken from Section 81 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; it therefore seems eminently suitable for this Bill.
9 p.m.
Lord Reay: We believe that both Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 are unnecessary and that Amendment No. 32 is in some respects defective. I can assure the Committee that the Government will consult interested parties before making any of the regulations permitted under the clause. That is standard practice. Indeed, we have already set the work in hand. The draft schedules of processes and substances that my honourable friend the Minister
824
for the Environment and Countryside tabled in another place during the Committee stage consideration of this Bill were the latest in a series of consultation papers indicating those parts of industry and the substances to be caught by Part I of the Bill.
However, the list of persons identified in the amendments points to the difficulty of specifying in advance those persons who should be consulted. In Amendment No. 32, there is no mention of those with a knowledge of the likely environmental effects of any releases, as there is in Amendment No. 30. In Amendment No. 30 there is no mention of those who understand abatement technology options. There is a danger that, in specifying certain categories of person to be consulted it may appear that others do not have equal standing. We therefore prefer to rely on normal administrative practices.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister has not begun to answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. My own mind is not entirely made up on this issue, but the noble Lord raised two important points. The first was that vital interests—according to him, the aluminium industry—had not been consulted about matters affecting large combustion plant. He then raised the argument concerning the Control of Pollution Act 1974, embracing just such a section. If that is the situation, why cannot the Government apply precisely the same principles as were devised for the Control of Pollution Act? Will the noble Lord answer those two points?
Lord Reay: The main thrust of our argument here is that we shall consult interested parties before making any of the regulations which are permitted under this clause and that this is a process on which we have already embarked, but that our main objection to selecting interests that should be consulted is that it puts those that are not so referred in an invidious position. The Government will consult on appropriate standards.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will forgive me for intervening. I do not know what he intends to do with his amendment, Amendment No. 30. I want to come back on what my noble friend said. He said that my amendment was defective. I accept that. Back-Bench amendments frequently are. But the sense of it was not lost on the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. In response, my noble friend said that there will be consultation under this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Section 81 of the Control of Pollution Act. Will my noble friend consult under the provisions of that section of that Act or only under this clause? He has not made that clear.
It is nonsense to argue that, if there is a non-selection of some consultees, they may feel slightly miffed. It is not difficult to identify those people who practise in an industry over which the regulations will apply and to ensure that, through a provision in the Bill, all those who think that they have an interest will have the opportunity to put forward their view. So I am afraid that I cannot accept that part of the argument; namely, the difficulty of identifying suitable consultees.

825
I hope that my noble friend will kindly respond in greater depth to the point that I made earlier. I am marginally inclined to accept his assurance that there will be entered into a full and proper consultation process, which is at least similar to that which applies under Section 81 of the 1974 Act.
Lord Reay: I am grateful to my noble friend for his last remarks. I can give the assurance that we shall consult under this Bill. The powers to do so are very wide and in our view adequate. As I said, the Government will consult and will do so under Clause 7 with regard to appropriate standards.
Lord Addington: I listened to the debate as it unfolded and it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has put his finger on a variety of points about the whole issue of consultation. I should like to read what the noble Lord said. At this point, I shall withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to come back to this issue at a later date when I have studied what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Emission etc. limits and quality objectives]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall seek to establish the highest practicable standards, objectives or requirements").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 40A. These three amendments hang together. The provisions contained in Clause 3 of Part I of the Bill allow the Secretary of State to make various regulations designating standards for the operation of the integrated pollution control regime. He is also empowered to revise plans to achieve progressive improvements in quality objectives. It is felt that the Secretary of State should have those functions as a duty, otherwise there seems little point in introducing IPC.
The amendment places a specific duty upon the Secretary of State to:
"seek to establish the highest practicable standards, objectives or requirements"
in exercising his powers to make regulations applying IPC to processes or substances.
Amendment No. 35 places a duty upon him to report to Parliament annually on the contents of the regulations, and their effectiveness in achieving improvements in pollution control and to give information on measures that he intends to take to achieve further improvement. Such a duty is of particular importance as it would allow for the inclusion of new data and information on pollution
826
control and threats to the environment to be built into the IPC system and allow the extension of IPC to other processes and substances.
Amendment No. 40A is related to those aims. National nature reserves and marine nature reserves are so declared because they are sites of special importance for nature conservation. They are the strongest designations possible. Because of their great national importance, it is essential that environmental standards within those reserves are maintained at the highest possible levels. They may contain species which are particularly sensitive to pollution but also they are the flagships of nature conservation in the United Kingdom and should, as a matter of principle, enjoy the highest possible standards.
Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to set different standards in relation to different cases according to several factors. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the importance of maintaining a super-clean environment in areas of great natural environmental quality is one of the factors that he considers. Furthermore, because the whole purpose of the reserve is to protect the wildlife within it, the criterion of safeguarding nature conservation interests must be paramount. If other considerations are allowed to override that, there is little point in having a nature reserve at all.
The amendment also serves to involve the Nature Conservancy Council in the process of setting objectives. The Bill is intended to be an environmental protection Bill. It is therefore important that the Government's advisory body on the conservation of the natural environment should be consulted.
These amendments are reasonable inclusions, and not intrusions, into the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will understand that they are approved by people outside this Chamber. They have special knowledge, advice and anxieties. If the Minister can satisfy me that the anxieties are groundless, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: The amendments seek to require the Government to set the highest practicable standards. We are at one in that objective and I assure Members of the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will do so. However, we do not see that the requirement needs to be spelt out in regulations. If Members of the Committee or of another place are dissatisfied with any regulations laid before them, I have no doubt that they will make their feelings known.
In Amendment No. 35 the noble Lord is calling for yet another annual report. The Government do not want to assist in establishing unnecessary bureaucracy. What would a report listing all relevant statutory instruments give us in effect except a call for yet more paper? Legislation is available, so why do we need to catalogue it? Clause 3(5) already allows the Secretary of State to amend the plans to improve the standards set. It should be for the Secretary of State to decide what is the appropriate timescale for doing so.

827
As regards Amendment No. 40A, I entirely share the noble Lord's desire to ensure that nature conservation is fully considered whenever environmental quality objectives or standards are set for any national or marine nature reserve. I assure Members of the Committee that all the appropriate bodies will be consulted when such regulations are made. I am happy to confirm that the Nature Conservancy Council will be consulted on all regulations prescribing processes and substances because of their potential for damage to the national environment.
But why single out the NCC and nature reserves when setting local environmental quality objectives? Such objectives and standards could cover a wide range of areas, including, for example, the urban street scene. Why not specify a body to act as guardians there too? Once one body is specified the need to specify others grows. Surely it is better to consider all potential environmental impacts and to rely on appropriate consultation to take place in each case. The amendments appear to be too inflexible and too narrow. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw them.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the amendments appear to be too narrow, the Government rest on legislation which is too broad. If the Minister rests his case on the fact that the request will result in yet another piece of bureaucracy, he can be assured that those who made it do not look upon it as such but as being essential in order to monitor the situation.
The Minister asked what is special about the national and marine nature reserves to distinguish them from an urban street scene. A case can be made for special consideration for the street scene and the urban environment. However, the reserves are not only special but precious. They were created by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Minister will be corrected by his noble friend on the title of the Act. I served upon the Bill when the measures were introduced. They were not fought by the Government but were introduced by them and were welcomed by many people.
I am grateful, as is the Nature Conservancy Council, that it will be consulted on matters that affect it. But pollution in the air is not static; it moves about. The council is saying that there is a great danger that the special nature of the national and marine nature reserves will be damaged unless special consideration is given. The Minister says that an additional report to Parliament would be superfluous. He has said that time and again. I have not heard many parliamentarians objecting to the fact that they are presented with reports. I have often heard governments—not only this one but previous governments—objecting to the chore of having to produce evidence of their actions from time to time.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. It will be looked at closely by those outside the Committee and we may need to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 14, after ("released") insert ("including releases into the atmosphere from electricity-generating stations, taking account of any works undertaken at such stations for the installation of low nitrogen oxide burners or flue-gas desulphurisation plant for the purposes of reducing such emissions").
The noble Lord said: As my noble friend Lord Graham said, Clause 3 is permissive. It allows the Secretary of State to make whatever regulations he wishes at a time and in a manner he regards as suitable.
In these amendments we are seeking to be rather more precise about the concerns which the Secretary of State should bear in mind when he makes such regulations. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to an important matter which has been before your Lordships on a number of occasions, not least on the passage of the Electricity Act and in other matters; namely, that pollution from electricity generating stations can—I emphasise the word "can" because nothing is proved in this world but the evidence is in favour of "can"—be a significant factor in acid rain.
We have it on record that the United Kingdom is the largest emitter of sulphur dioxide in Western Europe and the second largest emitter of nitrogen oxide in Western Europe. It is proven that acid rain is principally caused by emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Therefore, my amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to those matters.
The solution to the problem of acid rain and sulphur dioxide emissions is not easy and no Member of the Committee believes that it is. Nevertheless, power stations are the single largest emission sources for sulphur dioxide. In 1988 power stations accounted for 71 per cent. of national emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide.
When the CEGB was in operation before privatisation it announced a voluntary programme to retrofit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to power stations at Drax and Fiddler's Ferry. Subsequently, there was a Community directive on the subject and it was agreed in the directive that the UK should make reductions in sulphur dioxide emissions based on 1980 levels of 20 per cent. by 1993, 40 per cent. by 1998 and 60 per cent. by 2003. That is a very ambitious target for us. However, we wish to ensure that the Government accept that that is a proper target at which to aim.
The most effective way of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions is by the use of flue gas desulphurisation. Unfortunately, privatisation of the electricity industry has drastically altered those plans, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, at Question Time. It is believed that by a different method of generating electricity by using North Sea gas, and so on, the targets of the Community on emissions of noxious gases can be met.
I do not believe that gas should be used to generate electricity; nor does the Community. I do not believe the Government are taking the Community target

829
seriously. Therefore it is for us to write on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State, when he makes these regulations, should have regard to the matters contained in my amendment.
Perhaps I could return to the text of the amendment. The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to prescribed processes and under subsection (2)(a)(i) may prescribe,
"limits on the concentration, the amount or the amount in any period of that substance which may be so released".
My amendment seeks to introduce after that expression,
"including releases into the atmopshere from electricity-generating stations"—
taking account of the factors I mentioned.
I move the amendment in order to ascertain from the Government how seriously they take the programme for FGD plant. Are they or are they not committed to it? If they are committed will they accept that something should be on the face of the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State takes account of the factors I mentioned when he makes regulations. If they are not committed, will they say so?
On this side of the Chamber we always are and always have been concerned about the effect of privatisation in all areas, but especially in the surrender to commercial practices of environmental objectives. That is the reason we seek to ensure that the Government reinforce what they say in their propaganda—if I may use that term—by words on the face of the Bill.
At this stage of the Bill I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. However, as energy spokesman for my party I consider it important that the Government go on record—if they do not go on record positively then we will come back to this issue at a later stage—saying that the Secretary of State will take account of the matters I have discussed. I hope we will obtain satisfaction from the Government's response: if not, we shall have to consider what action to take. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I fear that the degree of positiveness required by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in order to satisfy his desire not to return to this matter at Report stage will be beyond my abilities.
There is no need to specify that the regulations the Secretary of State may make under Clause 3 may include limits on releases from power stations. I assure the Committee that the Government will take vigorous action to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide further. SO2 emissions are already down by 24 per cent. since 1980 and 40 per cent. since 1970. A substantial programme of action has been initiated to meet the requirements of the EC large combustion plants directive. Taking 1980 as the base it requires SO2 emissions from existing large combustion plants to be reduced by 60 per cent. by the year 2003 and NOx by 30 per cent.
Work has already begun to retrofit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to the Drax power station, which has a capacity of 4,000 megawatts and alone supplies around one-eighth of the coal-fired
830
output. Retrofits accounting for a further 4,000 megawatts of capacity are in prospect, and the electricity supply industry will have to come forward with additional proposals for achieving its full share of reductions.
I understand that the industry is looking at alternative power sources such as gas, which usually emits no SO2 and less than half as much CO2 per unit of energy as coal. In considering such proposals I assure the noble Lord that we will be concerned to ensure that the proposals are sufficiently robust to offer the necessary contribution for meeting our directive obligations.
As for NOx emissions, the CEGB is to retrofit all 12 major coal-fired stations—three-quarters of its coal-fired capacity—with low NOx burners.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is there still a CEGB?
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: That is what I might term a departmental colloquialism. In addition, the UK is a signatory to the Sofia NOx protocol of the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Air Pollution. Under this protocol we are committed to holding national NOx emissions to the 1987 level by 1994 and agreeing an abatement policy by 1996 which is founded on the "critical loads" approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, derided the use of gas in power stations. However, it is fair to say that it is perfectly possible that the world will decide within the next 10 years that CO2 is such a problem that we may have to go 100 per cent. nuclear. That is a problem rather more for the Benches opposite than this side of the Chamber when it comes to defining what one prefers as a form of fuel.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to his fears concerning privatisation. As I said earlier this afternoon when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was not in the Chamber, the fact that I have had so few questions to answer on water privatisation, which has resulted in this country having the only fully-funded clean-up programme in Europe, ensures my continuing belief that we are heading in the right direction and will achieve a satisfactory result.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The question of the Government's credentials is seriously in issue here. I speak with some authority because I continued the negotiations in connection with the draft directive on this matter which I inherited from Commissioner Narjes in 1985. I say that the credentials of the Government are seriously in issue because until that time, and indeed beyond, the Government were disputing cause and effect about acid deposition. They were fighting the Commission's draft directive not simply on the matter of detail but on principle. Every speech that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall; every speech that was made by a Government Minister on this issue; every contribution in the Ministerial Council, was aimed to obfuscate and to deny the opportunity for the draft directive to go ahead; and, of course, unanimity was required.
Suddenly it appeared even to the Government that this form of pollution was one of our major

831
exports and that it was not a desirable export; but I suppose if it could have been measured in terms of pounds and pence it would have gone a long way towards curing the balance of payments deficit. However, the fact is that there was apparently a change of heart. The then junior Minister, Mr. William Waldegrave, seemed to be genuinely pleased—I believe that he was entitled to be so—that the Government had had a change of heart. He announced that three large combustion plants—the three largest—were to be subject to retrofitting.
It was quite clear that although the Commission went a long way—some would say too far—to meet the Government's objections to the proposal, a compromise was achieved and I think there is now a serious doubt about the Government's intentions to honour that compromise. It is true that the Government were not on their own. The Spanish Government took a somewhat similar view, which I consider also to be reprehensible. The fact remains that there was the directive.
We know that when questions were posed in another place and in the European Parliament as to when contracts were to be placed for retrofitting, there was a marked silence, or at least a reticence, on the part of the Government to answer the questions. That is perfectly natural because no contracts were placed from the time that the announcement was made at the end of 1986 or the beginning of 1987, whenever it was, right up to the present time. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there is now a contract concerning Drax. There may well be. There has been enormous delay on the part of the Government.
The Minister said quite casually, but in a very elegant kind of way—and I recognise that—that one should accept the Government's good faith as regards their determination to honour their commitments concerning the directive. What analysis has been done by the Government of alternative plans to deal with the honouring of the directive's objectives? Why should we take this assertion on trust? After all, we have had assertion after assertion for years on end from the Government about why it was unnecessary to do anything. Particularly in the light of privatisation, why should we accept that the Government are determined to honour their commitments?
I have no such faith. The overwhelming body of public opinion can have little faith in that promise. Certainly, nothing has been said in Committee tonight which suggests that the Government have given the matter any great thought except to say, "Yes, the objective will be honoured". But when the Government's character is impunged by their own record on this matter, why should we take their word in good faith? Particularly in the light of the Minister's somewhat unsatisfactory reply, I am sad that we are not dividing on the matter tonight. It may be that is wise at this hour. Suffice it to say that I hope we shall come back to this matter because I do not think the Minister will improve on what was already a very unsatisfactory response.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Has the Minister anything to say in reply to my noble friend?
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord asked me whether or not work had actually started on the FGD at Drax. It began last year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is hardly a reply to the points that I made less elegantly, I admit, than the Minister. Will the Minister reply to the substance of what I had to say? Does he proclaim that the Government's record in relation to this matter justifies our having confidence in what he has said tonight to the Committee? What possible evidence can he produce to support that proposition?
Lord Hesketh: In my earlier remarks I made it clear—if I did not, then I apologise to the Committee. The Government's commitment is to 12 gigawatts; and eight of those will come out of coal-fired power stations. The concept accepted by the shortly-to-be-privatised companies is that there is a possibility of an alternative way for the remaining four gigawatts. The commitment to the 12 gigawatts has not gone away.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister referred to a possibility. Is that all there is? What certainty is there that the objectives defined in the directive will be achieved?
Lord Hesketh: The Government are committed to achieving those objectives.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister has not given a very satisfactory reply to this amendment. He said that he could not give me any assurance that he would be as positive as I wanted. He has been more or less negative. He could not give me an assurance that his department understood that privatisation had started, and that there was no longer a CEGB. He called it a departmental colloquialism. The Minister then referred to water privatisation, and he said that no complaints had been received in that connection. I do not understand how water privatisation comes into the context of my amendment.
He continued by saying that in future the Government might reinstate the nuclear programme. That will introduce a whole new series of environmental problems which we have not yet addressed. He could not give any clear answer to my noble friend—
Lord Hesketh: I did not say that. What I said, which is much more important than that, is that great problems have possibly been recognised by the world. The noble Lord is hoping to ensure that the Government are committed to a single policy. I am pointing out to him the commonsense fact that if there is a real problem about CO2 the world may have to consider nuclear power as an option. That is not committing the Government to nuclear power, it is stating a piece of common sense.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not trying to argue that the Government should be committed to a single policy. I am trying to argue that the Government should be committed to a policy. The

833
noble Lord seemed to refute the idea that there should be a policy about these matters. He was unable to answer the points made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and he was unable to answer my points. I invite noble Lords opposite to join the debate. We have had an astonishing silence from the Conservative Party, the Green Party, and so on. No noble Lord wishes to speak on the matter.
834
I rest my case there. The noble Lord must do much better on this matter before we come to Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hampton Lord Hampton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) above may have effect as part of a national strategy published by the Secretary of State for the conservation of energy, including—

(a) the promotion of energy conservation in domestic premises;

(b) measures to develop improved use of energy and good practice in industrial and commercial premises;

(c) the development of public awareness of the implications of energy conservation for the environment").

The noble Lord said: I rise in place of my noble friend Lord Ezra, who cannot be here tonight, to move Amendment No. 36, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
The first step in any environmental policy must be the elimination of waste, especially dangerous waste. That applies to much of the environmental debate. Energy conservation remains a central feature to those of us who are concerned with environmental issues. The contribution that energy inefficiency makes to global warming, let alone the expense involved in wastage, is substantial. It has been estimated that the total heat loss of United Kingdom power stations is enough to heat every home in Britain. Average world temperatures have already warmed by 0·5 to 0·7 degrees centigrade since pre-industrial times. There is likely to be a further rise of 0·5 to 1 degree centigrade over the next few decades because of the increase in greenhouse gases. The likely implications of such temperature rises have been widely catalogued.
More concerted action must be taken now. This amendment, representing a small step towards solving the vast problem of global warming, is nonetheless a step in the right direction. It enables the Secretary of State to determine through a national strategy a far-reaching programme for the conservation of energy to tackle the problems as they affect domestic premises and industrial and commercial premises. It also points to the need to heighten awareness of energy conservation issues among the general public.
Many people throughout the country will be aware of global warming and associated problems but they remain unaware of the implications at a domestic level of not having roof insulation or pipes lagged. Education and advertising have an important role to play. Such a national strategy for the conservation of energy might well include something on the following lines. A subsidised energy survey scheme would encourage greater energy saving. In the United States energy supply companies or utilities are legally required to provide customers with a low-cost and sometimes free home energy survey, containing advice on how to promote energy efficiency. Such a scheme is of sense to the utility, to the customer and of course to the environment.
Inefficient domestic appliances also offer great scope for improvement. Consumers should be aware of the efficiency or otherwise of their appliances, and a scheme of labelling should be introduced by the Government as a matter of priority. This
836
amendment is an enabling amendment. There has undoubtedly been an enhanced awareness of energy efficiency issues in recent years, but it does not go nearly far enough. This amendment seeks to redress that deficiency.
In addition, the Association for the Conservation of Energy suggests that there is a need to establish an effective system of monitoring the progress made in improving energy efficiency in local authority housing on an accurate and regular basis. The options available to promote environmental efficiency are vast. The need is there. This amendment will enable the Minister to develop a clear strategy. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to express my support for the amendment. Although I regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I am delighted that the amendment has been moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I wish to make two additional points to those which have already been so effectively made.
First, I should remind Members of the Committee that we are dealing with Clause 3 of the Bill which is about emission limits. It seems to me to be positively perverse to talk about controlling emission limits if we do not, at the same time, deal with the effective use of energy and therefore with energy conservation. For example, it would be total madness if you had a house and you applied controls to one half of it while allowing the other half to negate those controls by the unnecessary release of energy, especially of heat, into the atmosphere.
My second point concerns the role of local authorities in the control of energy. Local authorities are now faced with a new problem. Many of them, especially through the use of capital which was made available to them by disposal of council housing, have carried out significant improvements in major repairs to council housing. They have, at the same time, carried out energy conservation measures which would never have been possible if that capital had not been available. However, they have now had that capital taken away from them and have been told that they are not allowed to use the proceeds of council house sales for major improvement programmes.
They have been told that this will now be ring-fenced, and that only a small proportion is to be available for such purposes. That must mean that the Government are putting pressure directly upon local authorities to reduce expenditure on energy conservation. To that extent, local authorities which have been at the forefront of energy conservation programmes are being hamstrung in their ability to deal with the problem and to contribute to what I should have thought we would all wish to see happen.
The Earl of Balfour: I feel that I must join in the debate at this point. I do so because at long last this Government have done more to encourage us, with the introduction of the community charge, to do

837
something about our homes than any government have done for a very long time. I remind Members of the Committee that under the rates system the minute you put central heating into your homes your rates were increased. Moreover, if you installed double glazing, your rates were also increased. We were constantly paying quite a heavy penalty through the rates system for improving our houses. However, at long last that penalty has been removed.
Lord Ross of Newport: I must counter that observation by saying that we had a very jerky system so far as concerns local government and improvement of housing over the past 10 or more years. A few years ago, the Government introduced a system whereby people who owned properties built prior to 1919 could obtain 90 per cent. grant to reroof their homes. However, the trouble was that the availability of this offer was not made obligatory upon local authorities, and in any case they were told initially that the offer would last for only one year. Therefore, many local authorities did not adopt the scheme. That is why I spent £2,750 reroofing my old house: I received no grant. However, afterwards, everyone else on the Isle of Wight who had a house of that type seemed to have received such a grant. But what a ridiculous way of going about the matter! Why on earth did we give 90 per cent. grants? If we had given 50 per cent. grants, vast numbers of people would have taken advantage of the offer. That is the kind of thing we must do.
We must encourage people to install energy-saving devices into their properties. One of the ways to do this is to give such people some grant-aid. I do not think that it is necessary to throw vast sums of money at the project; but we must give them an incentive. For example, if you give a farmer a 30 per cent. grant to build a new barn, he will probably do so. If people in this country could be made to see the sense of going in for solar energy, and knew that they could do so for about £1,500, they would be encouraged. If they had a grant of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent.—that money should be available from local authorities—vast numbers of people would make use of solar energy.
We did not revalue from about 1974 and therefore most improvements were not clobbered. It is true that if people improved their properties the rental value went up. I agree that that was one of the drawbacks of the rating system. I beg the Government to allow local authorities to give incentives to people to enable them to introduce commonsense energy-saving initiatives such as lagging roofs and tanks. Many people still do not have felt under their slate or tiled roofs. Such work must be done. It can be done by encouraging people through some sort of financial incentive. I beg the Government to take the amendment on board.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 36 permits the publication of a statement on the conservation of energy. That we do not need such a power is evidenced by our intention—I doubt that I need to remind the Committee—to issue in the autumn a White Paper on the environment which will deal
838
with energy matters alongside many others that have an impact on the environment.
Nevertheless, the amount of energy used to produce each £1,000 of GDP has improved from 1·24 tonnes of coal equivalent in 1979 to 1·01 tonnes in 1988. That is an average reduction in energy intensity of 2 per cent. per annum. The Energy Efficiency Office programmes have achieved direct energy savings of well over £500 million per year. According to the OECD figures from last year, only Luxembourg had a better record of energy efficiency within the EC between 1975 and 1987. A recent study by the National Audit Office concluded that national energy savings in the United Kingdom were running at £2·3 billion per year above the levels of 1983 based on an energy/GDP ratio.
My noble friend Lord Balfour made a valid point. Members opposite have talked about providing incentives. His point about the community charge was correct; but the Labour Party has now endorsed the policy of reintroducing the rates, which is a direct tax on the improvement of property by the addition of double glazing and central heating to save energy, as he pointed out. We resist the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Will the Minister tell us from where he gets his information about Labour Party policy?
Lord Hesketh: I am an innocent victim who reads across a broad spectrum of the press in the moments allowed when I am not attending the Committee.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the Minister always believe what he reads in the press?
Lord Hesketh: Such was the broad spectrum of reportage that I believed it to be true; but if I am wrong I am more than happy to be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Hampton: I do not find the Minister's reply encouraging, but at this time of night I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert:
("(2A) Regulations made under subsection (2) above in respect of emissions from motor vehicles shall prescribe such standards as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the reduction of levels of primary pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, reactive hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, and at the time when any such regulations are first published, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement of objectives in relation to public transport, and the promotion or otherwise of the use of motor vehicles, with the purpose of securing a progressive reduction of concentrations of primary pollutants by the year 2000.").
The noble Lord said: The Minister, having started by repudiating any interest in the concerns of other government departments, has ended up by claiming credit for the work of the EEO in the Department of Energy; and so he will forgive me if I challenge him to take responsibility, on behalf of the

839
Government as a whole, for the enormous conflict which now arises between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport.
How can we have an Environmental Protection Bill which does not deal with one of the most serious and increasing forms of environmental pollution? In its 1989 national road traffic forecasts the Department of Transport coolly predicts that total traffic will increase by between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by 2025. The implications of that increase on the emission of pollutants can hardly be underestimated. Even if we were to install 100 per cent. catalytic converters in our cars—and we shall come to that with Amendment No. 38—and even if we were thus to reduce nitrogen oxide, we would still have at least 50 per cent. and probably significantly more carbon monoxide emissions. Even if we were to increase fuel efficiency and take the lower of the two traffic forecasts which the Department of Transport issued last year, we should still have an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 20 per cent.
There have been panic consultations between the Departments of the Environment and Transport or at least between the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport. I do not know what happens within the different towers of Marsham Street. When the Department of Transport published its road programme, Trunk Roads—England: Into the 1990s in February this year, it said that the forecasts were in no sense a target or option. If they are not a target or an option, what are they? If they are not to be a target and are not to be accepted as an option, then surely the Government must have alternative plans. Those plans are not included in Trunk Roads—England: Into the 1990s. Unless there is some realistic alternative for simply continuing to create road space to meet the projected increase in traffic, the denial that this is a target or an option is a meaningless gesture.
If we are to have a serious transport policy integrated with pollution control and environmental protection—and that is what we demand in the amendment—we must have a specific commitment to a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide. We must have specific policies about the effect on the forecasts of traffic increases of the use of alternative modes and land use policies. Those policies and plans for alternative modes must be written into government policies.
In particular, in our cities we must have a rethinking of the cowardly approach which has existed in the past that simply says, "As we anticipate demand we increase road capacity". It is now well recognised that the reverse is the case: as we increase road capacity we increase demand. I have no hesitation in saying, because I said this on behalf of the Labour Party in the Greater London Council election in 1981: the time has come when the restraint on vehicular traffic in our cities at certain times of day and on certain roads can no longer be postponed. The time has come when we can no longer assume that all vehicles will be able to travel on all roads at all times without some form of penalty.
If that commitment is thought to be threatening to the private car driver, so be it. It is a commitment that will be forced on all political parties in this country within the next decade. The first party to recognise it and deal with it as a political priority will—I shall put it the other way round. The last party to recognise it and deal with it as a political priority will sink into oblivion. It will be clear that a decent society in our cities, with the protection of the national and global environment, cannot survive under the policies still rampant in the Department of Transport.
We must remove the bias to roads confirmed only 10 days ago by the extraordinary announcement that it is illegitimate for us to give a single penny of public money towards international rail traffic. That was on the spurious grounds that we are not doing so for international air traffic or international ferry traffic. Nevertheless the assumption is made without exception that any increase in road capacity is to be paid for, not by a contribution from the public purse, but 100 per cent. from the public purse. Transport policy in this country is perhaps the last area in which the Government have not only made no real progress towards dealing with the problems of the 1990s but have not even started to recognise that those problems exist.
At least in many other areas of policy the Government make an attempt to copy the rhetoric and to understand what is happening in the world and to make gestures towards policy change. As far as we can see, as regards transport policy we are still living in the age of the Ark. As long as that situation continues and as long as it is permissible for this Government to continue with reactionary transport policies everything else that is found in this Environmental Protection Bill, however good it may be, is without meaning and without substance. Unless there is a commitment to a change in transport policy and the Government are prepared to write that into the Bill, we shall continue with the deep scepticism which we still feel not about the objectives of the Bill but about the willingness of the Government to give it any real meaning. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Hampton: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as regards the proposals to reduce the problems caused by emissions from motor vehicles. I support the noble Lord wholeheartedly in his attack on the Government's lack of a serious transport policy. I am sceptical that the Government have a convincing policy towards stabilisation of emissions when they talk at the same time of a probable doubling—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has referred to this—of the number of cars on the roads of Britain in the next 30 years or so. The Committee may have seen an article by John Adams in yesterday's edition of The Times, where he stated:
"Any government wanting to help solve the greenhouse problem by reducing carbon dioxide emissions will need to do more than just halt the growth in cars and lorries, but reduce it".
However, for the time being we need to hear the Government's reply to the proposals contained in this amendment which we support.
The Earl of Balfour: I have one question here to begin with. Can a Member of the Committee tell me what the difference is between a primary and a secondary or some other kind of pollutant? I do not know what the difference is. Further, I feel that quite a lot has been achieved in this field. British Rail's east and west coast routes to Scotland will be completely electrified within about six months from now. This Government have introduced lead free petrol. I think it is worth bearing in mind that with the improvement in the efficiency of engines, assuming the same weight of car, a 1600cc engine is usually much more economical than, say, a 1300cc engine. That is rather interesting.
Equally I feel that the Secretary of State has to have an overall picture of pollution. I very much doubt whether he will be able to improve the situation in respect of road transport with the steady increase in the number of cars that is being demanded today.
Lord Hesketh: I was always under the impression that the Ark was a prototype form of public transport. However, I may have been wrong on that point. As regards Amendment No. 37, it is clear that when we come to set further emission limits for vehicles we shall regulate our industry in line with standards set across the European Community. We are already committed to tough new car standards from 1st July 1992. All new models of cars must be capable of meeting these standards. That will cut by about 80 per cent. emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
Cars will require a three-way catalyst to achieve these standards. It is estimated that this will add some £1·5 billion a year to UK motoring costs. The EC has recently published its proposal for a consolidated directive which will extend these standards to larger cars. The proposal also includes a new test procedure, durability requirements and limits on evaporative emissions. We are also pressing our colleagues in the EC for tough new standards for diesels and for control of carbon dioxide.
Heavy goods vehicles now account for some 50 per cent. of nitrogen oxides emitted by road vehicles and, as the Committee will know, carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas. The Committee will, however, appreciate that we must proceed in harmony with all member states.
On public transport, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that the Government are not interested in public transport. That is just not true. The Government are currently supporting a huge investment programme in British Rail of some £3·7 billion over the next three years—I believe that is in excess of the West German investment—and in the London Underground of £1·7 billion over the next three years. The Jubilee line and the Docklands light railway are to be extended, and there is to be a major new light rail scheme in Manchester which the Government are helping to fund with a substantial grant.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, first suggested that there is no contribution towards road construction, but he conveniently forgot the existence of the road fund licence compared with
842
subsidies to which he referred elsewhere, which I think it would be fair to say involve a reasonable and extremely substantial sum of money.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I always thought it was argued that there was no such thing as hypothecation, and that the road fund licence contributions did not in fact go towards a specific road fund building programme. Is the Minister now changing Treasury policy?
Lord Hesketh: Of course I am not changing Treasury policy. All I am suggesting to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is that if one takes the total amount of taxation and then suggests that there is no contribution in a certain quarter that is taking rather a liberated view of the situation.
We covered some of this ground earlier in the environmental debate, and we come back to the old favourite of 142 per cent., where the Opposition throw up their hands in despair and say it is disgraceful that any department of state can produce a figure which insinuates that road traffic might increase by 142 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, then went on to refer to targets or options, insinuating in some way that this resulted in the Government being committed irrevocably. I would suggest that neither "target" nor "option" is the correct word. The word that is correct is "forecast".
It would be extremely irresponsible of any government to ascertain the level of transport requirement for a particular type of road user or, in the health service, the possibility of death from certain diseases, and to say, "We don't like that figure so we will deny its existence". The Government have a responsibility to prepare the figures which allow them to be discussed in your Lordships' Committee and many other great corridors in this land.
Finally, it is also worth remembering, as I pointed out earlier, it is a sad truism that with increasing expenditure on public transport in West Germany it has been found that the actual level of use has been falling.
Lord Clinton-Davis: When the Government signed the Single European Act, although the Prime Minister seems to have a somewhat frustrated memory about that, they accepted the principle that environmental policy would be integrated into all other policies. On the evidence that is available I hardly think that that is being taken very seriously in Whitehall at the present time in so far as transport policy is concerned.
I shall not go into the details of transport policy at this stage, but the Government have very clearly overlooked that fundamental obligation altogether.
I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions. He referred to the catalytic converter. There is a case, indeed, for conversion as far as the Government are concerned because yet again, during the four years that I was a Commissioner with this particular responsibility, I found that the Government bitterly opposed at every conceivable turn the Commission's draft directive in so far as small and medium sized cars were concerned. Is that

843
not correct? Did they not argue that the catalytic converter was a German ploy to win an unfair share of the European car market, that it was not effective, that it was altogether undesirable and therefore should be opposed by the Commission? The Commission did their very best to abate those anxieties, but to no avail until very much later.
What was interesting about the debate and yet again casts the Government in a somewhat dubious light is that the Government asserted in relation to small and medium-sized cars that there was no need for strict limits, although British, French and Italian manufacturers were producing much cleaner cars for export to some of the EFTA countries and to the United States than they were prepared to provide for the people of the Community. So that saga of the Government putting every obstacle in the way, just like the large combustion installation situation, went on.
Why have the Government suddenly changed their view about the catalytic converter? Why have they suddenly taken the view that they were utterly wrong in resisting the Commission's proposals up to the beginning of 1989? Was it that there was a Euro-election seven days after the Environmental Council was to take place? Was it that they decided that the view of the European Parliament's substantially amending proposal—amendments which the Commission was disposed to accept—was a situation that they could not resist just before a European election? The Government were not isolated—I am perfectly prepared to be fair about that—because the French and the Italians were in exactly the same position. It was an unholy alliance designed over years to frustrate progress in that field. Yet one sees on television the Prime Minister saying that we were in the lead over catalytic converters.
The Government insisted that the draft directive should be watered down. Why did they delay over all those years? The Minister must answer that question if the Government are to have any credibility in our accepting once again their request for their credibility to be accepted.
I wish to say one other thing about the matter. The conspiracy—I believe that that is what it was—between the car manufacturers in the three countries that I have mentioned and the Governments of those countries was a scandal. I remember receiving a letter a day or two before the crucial discussion in the Commission over medium-sized cars from one of the chairmen of a large car-producing company in Europe. He argued that our policy proposals would imperil jobs and investment, and they were thoroughly bad. We reached a near agreement and the following day the self-same chairman of the motor car company wrote to me saying, "Well, having second thoughts, maybe it was not that bad".
We had that strange way of policy developing—if you could deign it to be policy—in conjunction with the short-term interests of the car-manufacturing companies by those three governments. It was a page of shame and something which redounded to the extreme disadvantage of people in Europe over many years. The Government have many explanations to offer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am not sure whether the Committee wants to engage in the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to have a debate on transport policy. If it does, then I shall join in; but I would rather address my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
I say that with respect. It is no good the noble Lord pursuing in this Committee tonight the battles that he fought valiantly and properly as a commissioner, particularly on an amendment which deals entirely with pollution control and control of emissions from motor cars. That is what it is about, not the past policies of the Government. If the noble Lord wants to engage in a discussion on catalytic converters, let me tell him that of all the technological developments that have occurred in the motor industry—I speak with some small knowledge—the catalytic converter is about the least efficient.
However, it makes a small contribution and it will continue to do so until such time as the new generation of lean-burn engines is developed, which the entire industry particularly wants. That it was expedient to go down that route is neither here nor there; that is the route that we have taken. Moreover, the catalytic converter will bring with it a load of other troubles; namely, its disposal, its renewal and its feeding with another scarce raw material. It is totally outrageous for the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to say—I think I heard him correctly—that there was a conspiracy between the car manufacturers and the Government. That is absolute nonsense; I repeat, nonsense.
But let us leave that matter aside and turn to the amendment. That is what we are supposed to be discussing. The last part of the amendment states that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement of objectives, and so on:
"with the purpose of securing a progressive reduction of concentrations of primary pollutants by the year 2000".
I believe that I have answered the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, with regard to primary and secondary pollutants. One gets secondary pollutants after the catalytic converter has done its work. One gets primary pollutants when one's motor car is filled at a gas station and when a tank is filled up in the tank depot. The oil companies themselves are engaged in a great deal of research in seeking to make reductions in that area. It is the secondary pollutants which come out at the end of the exhaust pipe.
Had the noble Lord's amendment stated that it was with the purpose of securing no greater increase notwithstanding the increased number of motor vehicles, I should have some sympathy. One cannot put back the clock for motor cars which are 14 years old or 18 years old and which still have some life in them. Therefore one has to ensure that the new growth in car and vehicle parts does not add to the problem. That might have been a little more sensible.
I find this particular amendment fraught with technical difficulties. If one were to argue that those were difficulties that the Department of Transport and their technicians must overcome, I could accept that kind of argument. However, I do not believe that it is a practical proposition to put in this Bill in this way.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, can argue in such a fashion when it seems that we are to get a lot of propaganda from the Front Bench opposite about what they are doing with British Rail and goodness knows what else. I think that the Government must be horrified that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has come into this Chamber and told us a few brutal facts about what has been going on when he viewed it from Brussels over the past few years. I very much welcome his comments this evening. I think that it is about time that some of those things were debated in this Chamber.
I realise that one is supposed to be very courteous and so on, but it is absolute nonsense for the Minister to stand here and say that the Government spend this or that amount on the railways. It all comes out of their external financing limit. He must sit in his ministerial car night after night and day after day in traffic jams with cars sending out fumes and getting nowhere, chained for 10 minutes, 15 minutes or half an hour. Listen to the radio any morning and hear of the six-mile tailbacks on the M.25.
In this country we do not have a transport policy. British Rail is losing thousands and millions of pounds, because in order to pay for the improvements, modernisation and so on which it is trying to effect, it is taking off staff from the stations. At night I do not have to buy a ticket when I go to Charing Cross or Blackfriars although I do buy one. I get off at a south London station and there is no-one to claim the ticket. The stations are not even manned. That is what is happening. It is time for this Chamber, as for the other place, when they have a chance in this amendment, to say that they want to have a transport policy.
As a member of the Select Committee on Transport of another place, I helped consider the Bills that were introduced when Mr. Ridley was Secretary of State for Transport. I argued with him about an integrated transport system but he did not believe in it. Now the phrase has returned and we are beginning to think that we should have an integrated transport system.
We live in a small country—do not throw us by speaking about Germany—and we are overpopulated in the South East. We must return to an efficient system of public transport. This may not be the right debate in which to discuss transport policy, but I believe that the Government must do a great deal more and do it a darned sight more quickly. If they do not do so the whole country will come to a standstill. The Government had a good Minister of Transport in Lynda Chalker. I argued the issue with her 10 years ago. In 1973 and with a majority of 150 the Government had a wonderful opportunity—
Lord Burton: I am wondering what the noble Lord's argument has to do with the amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: The amendment states that:
"the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement of objectives in relation to public transport, and the promotion or otherwise of the use of motor vehicles".
846
That is what my argument has to do with the amendment and that is why I put it forward. I hope to goodness that we shall receive a better response.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord will not receive a better response. However, it is my job to respond to the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, of conspiracy on the part of the Government with regard to catalytic converters. I am a very simple fellow. Once upon a time I knew a little about engines and engineering. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that not even to mention clean-burn and lean-burn technology is remarkable. The Government had a perfectly respectable case. They accepted catalytic converters with demands for further changes. As I pointed out earlier today, the Government are pushing for improvements in diesel engines in the Community. I do not accept the accusation of conspiracy in any shape or form.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall not delay the Committee for long. There appeared to be an unseemly unity between the three car manufacturing countries and their manufacturers at that time. What has happened to lean burn? Many protestations were made about it but little has developed. I heard the Prime Minister speak on television proclaiming that the Government are in the lead as regards catalytic converters. If anyone was re-writing history it was the Prime Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Members of the Committee opposite questioned whether it was appropriate to have a transport debate when dealing with the Bill. I do not see how we can deal with the Bill effectively without considering one of the most serious sources of the emission of pollutants in this country. After all, the Bill is supposed to cover the emission of pollutants. I do not see how we can conceivably cover the Bill effectively and honourably if we do not consider the emissions from power stations, as did my noble friend Lord Williams and others. Indeed, other Members of the Committee have spoken of the opportunities which arise through energy conservation.
Similarly, I do not see how we can meaningfully discuss air pollutants in Part I of the Bill unless at the same time we are prepared to consider a transport policy. In response to the arguments that were put to him the Minister simply skated around their fringes rather than attempting to deal with them. I do not say that to cut emissions from internal combustion engines is easy. I do not say that there is a single way of achieving that; nor that the only way to achieve it is through catalytic converters. However, if one heard the way in which the Government blazened their green credentials when they reduced the tax on unleaded petrol, one would not recognise the fact that unleaded petrol does nothing to alleviate most of the dangerous emissions from internal combustion engines. It certainly does not increase the efficiency of internal combustion engines.
I do not suggest that even now we have all the answers. After all, mobility is a strong human desire.

847
It will be difficult to deal with it other than by starving it and that is the last acceptable option. One must combine increased efficiency of individual internal combustion engines with a move from the internal combustion engines which are most dangerous to those which are less dangerous. This will involve catalytic converters even though they may not be the long-term solution.
Above all, despite what the Minister said, there is need for proper planning of traffic and a transport policy which takes into account both the private car and public transport. It is no good the Minister denying that the forecasts which have been made are targets or options. If he is claiming that they are only forecasts, then government policy cannot be silent on what means are to be adopted to stop those forecasts coming true. G. K. Chesterton said that the favourite employment of the English was to summon the soothsayers, listen very carefully to what they said and then to go away and do something else. It would be admirable if, in respect of traffic forecasts, we could do that. Unfortunately, it is not open to the individual to do something else about traffic growth and emissions from the internal combustion engine. It needs government policy to redress the balance between private and public transport. It is no answer to say, "This is a forecast and nothing to do with me". It means adopting the policies which we have indicated in moving the amendment.
I despair at the response which the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. When he says that we must move in harmony with all member states, is he seriously saying that there is no obligation on us to do better than other member states if we can and at least to keep up with them when we cannot do better? This is a signal opportunity to take the lead in the European Community. We have a car industry which is particularly strong as regards smaller cars. They may not always be more efficient than those from abroad but could be made so. We have a taxation system which favours the company car far more than in any other European country except Sweden. We should use regulation of taxation of the company car in order to control emissions and to increase the energy efficiency of our own motor industry.
We have strayed on to the subject of catalytic converters dealt with in Amendment No. 38. That is not grouped with this amendment and I do not propose to move it because we should be duplicating the argument. However, the argument about transport policy and the contribution of emissions from internal combustion engines to total pollution will not go away and has not gone away. It is only because we know that, if there is to be any attempt at credibility when the White Paper comes out in September, the Government will have to face this matter more fairly and openly than they have today that I propose to withdraw the amendment and to bring back something comparable on Report in the light of the White Paper.
The responses of the Governme.nt to this fundamental challenge to the credibility of the Bill and especially this part of it have been totally
848
inadequate. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert:
("(3a) In prescribing by regulation any standards under subsection (2) above in respect of emissions into the air from electricity generating stations, or in establishing by regulation limits as to such substances in the air under subsection (5) below, the Secretary of State shall take into account—

(a) the availability of electricity supplies from renewable sources including wind power;

(b) the relative environmental impact of renewable and fossil fuel sources of electricity; and

(c) the desirability of providing, or of securing the provision of, financial incentives to such renewable sources.").

The noble Lord said: Yet again—and I apologise to the Committee—we come to the problem of trying to make this Environmental Protection Bill into a proper Bill for environmental protection. Had he been a Member of your Lordships' House, the third name to this amendment would have been that of Mr. Heseltine. As the Committee will know, today he called for a greener government and said that the targets set by the Government in the Environmental Protection Bill were not good enough. If Mr. Heseltine had been a Member of the Committee I am sure that he would have put his name to the amendment.
The point of the amendment is twofold. First, we on these Benches—and I can also speak for the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, on this matter—do not believe that the Government have shown enough enthusiasm for renewable sources of energy. There have been a number of debates on that topic in this Chamber and I have participated in many of them. At all times we tried to press the Government seriously to consider sources of energy other than nuclear energy, which at one point was their favourite. It was considered to be environmentally friendly. At other times they favoured the fossil fuel generating stations which were also considered to be environmentally friendly. We received no serious response.
Secondly, and more importantly for the purposes of this Bill, given that we are dealing with economics—and we must accept that environmental protection has an economic cost—we must ensure that renewable sources are given proper economic incentive to compete with existing sources of electricity generation.
The problem arises because the capital costs of fossil fuel plants, which were formerly owned by the CEGB and are now owned by National Power and PowerGen, have effectively been written off under the privatisation programme. Although they had a low return when they were in the CEGB, under privatisation the profit they need to make—their capital costs having been written off—is lower than it would be had those stations been amortised according to normal practice.
The result is that anyone who tries to start a greenfield site on renewable energy—be it wind power, offshore wind or anything else—has to compete with electricity generated by stations whose capital costs have been amortised artificially under the privatisation programme and which can produce electricity at a low price. One has to accept that. In addition, there is the problem that nuclear power stations, which are still in the public sector, will be able to produce electricity at a price that the Nuclear Electric Company will set and which may or may not bear relation to the market price. We have had these debates before in this Chamber and we know that the price will not bear any relation to the true cost of electricity generated by those stations if one takes account of decommissioning.
The working of the present pool, which is the new system under which electricity prices to the distributing companies will be determined, requires generators to bid in advance for power to be supplied. There have to be contracts. It is difficult for generating companies which wish to invest in renewable energy of any kind to forecast exactly what their output will be. That has been the problem not only for those trying to erect renewable stations but also for those trying to erect traditional stations. They cannot make any predictions about their costs and hence their prices.
We should like to see some sort of provision for renewable energy sources to be accepted as a base-load, as part of the system, because they are essentially environmentally friendly. In Germany, the government have set a specific environmentally friendly energy premium for wind generated energy. In the Netherlands, government subsidies of the order of 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. on capital cost are available. In Denmark there is an obligation on utilities to install a fixed amount of wind power and that has kept orders moving. In the United Kingdom there is no such provision, no such obligation and nothing like it is contained in the Bill.
We are yet again trying to persuade the Government that both economically and strategically it is right for renewable sources of energy—I have wind power particularly in mind—to be part of this Bill; to be part of what the Secretary of State has regard to when he makes regulations under Clause 3. If the Government are serious—I refer again to debates that have taken place this evening on other matters—about environmental protection they will take these proposals seriously and put them on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I moved an amendment to the Electricity Bill on 16th May 1989, (Cols. 1151–2) on the subject of renewable sources of electricity and I was encouraged by the Government that there was a future for such ventures, not least by the remarks of my noble friend Lady Hooper on 15th June 1989 when she said that,
"renewable generators can always look to the future with optimism".
I did what I was told and looked at my own farm as a possible site for wind power. Therefore, I declare an interest. More importantly, generation from wind
850
power could be an alternative use of land not just for me in Anglesey but for many farmers, particularly in the west of the United Kingdom. I need hardly remind the Committee that farmers are continually being exhorted to do anything other than produce food.
However, when I looked at the possibility of producing wind power some problems arose. First, as explained clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it was impossible to put up capital against a fossil fuel plant or, indeed, a nuclear plant heavily subsidised by privatisation write-off. As the noble Lord explained, the electricity supply industry between 1982 and 1987 only received a return of 3 per cent. on its money. How can I compete against that with interest rates at 15 per cent.?
Secondly, the contract now being offered only runs until 1998 which, bearing in mind that it might take two years to build a plant, is far too short and compares very unfavourably with contracts offered to the nuclear power industry, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, those on the Continent.
Thirdly, there is a planning problem; not least because the most suitable sites for wind power are likely to be in beautiful and quiet places. I ask the Government to consider devoting more research into making windmills less noisy. It can be done but it costs money and that makes the project unviable. I cannot accept the argument that this is a local planning matter. I understand, for example, that the NCC in North Wales is against wind power. I presume, therefore, that it prefers acid rain or no ozone layer; or perhaps typically of the NCC it wants to go back to candles and not have any power at all.
If the Government want the private sector to invest in renewable clean energy—and from the comments I have read in the press my right honourble friend Mr. John Wakeham does—these points need addressing. In short, I want to see not just the colour of the Government's money but to know whether they are really keen to encourage planners and researchers to support these renewable sources of energy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: In common with my noble friend Lord Williams I have taken part in a number of debates on this subject. I have only one question to ask the Minister. Wind power has been dealt with by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
The amendment refers to renewable sources of energy. I want to make one reference to another renewable source—that of wave power. I have never had an answer to the questions that I put on 21st February of this year when we were discussing manufacturing industry and I pointed out the number of environmentally friendly technologies which has been invented and developed in this country, used abroad and neglected here. That is particularly the case as regards wind power.
I trust that the Minister knows something of the history of Professor Salter's duck in Edinburgh. The whole scheme for using wave power for totally clean energy production was sabotaged because renewable resources came under the umbrella of the Atomic

851
Energy Authority. The totally false figures given at that time for the expense of nuclear energy compared with the energy that could be produced from renewable resources, especially from wave power, meant that the research that was being successfully done here, and in other countries since then, was starved of funds and virtually destroyed.
After all the arguments and the evidence that we have put before him, I ask the Minister whether he will now consider setting up a separate authority for the renewable production of energy so that it is not held to be in competition with nuclear energy and so that it becomes a part of government policy to promote renewable resources to produce cheaper electricity and, above all, cleaner electricity.
Lord Hesketh: I fear that I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, because I propose to address myself to the amendment and not to the specific questions that he asked, which are not to do with the amendment but with what he suggests might have happened concerning a particular product. If the noble Lord likes to table a Question on the subject I am sure that he will elucidate a satisfactory answer.
We fully recognise the importance of developing alternative, renewable sources of energy. The Department of Energy has already spent over £150 million on research and development into renewable energy sources and expects to spend a further £50 million in the next three years. Under the Electricity Act 1989 some 600 megawatts of generating capacity has been reserved for renewable energy sources. This has given a considerable boost to the sector and over 300 applications have been received by the Department of Energy for projects to generate this reserve capacity.
However, we must for the foreseeable future rely substantially for our electricity needs on current generating methods. Any standards or limits that are set cannot ignore this. Perhaps I may give two examples which I have seen in the department recently, one of which concerns a tidal barrage where there are distinct environmental problems. The minute one begins to raise water in an estuary it starts covering low mudflats. People with a great interest in bird life and various other activities then feel that there is a risk. There are very difficult environmental solutions to be found in that case.
I know that my noble friend Lord Stanley is well aware of the next example. If I simplify the point it is probably fair to say that most of the suitable locations for windmills tend to be in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Again, there are conflicts of a fairly prodigious nature there between, as my noble friend Lord Stanley rightly points out, the desire of a farmer to reduce his costs or to supply power to a local community and the desire to preserve the landscape.
Those are two simple examples of where there is conflict which is difficult to resolve in terms of achieving planning permission and providing power in the short term. There will be many factors to take into account in deciding on appropriate standards or limits. While I share noble Lords' support for
852
renewable energy, I do not feel it would be appropriate to identify this one in particular on the face of the Bill.
However, as regards discussions that are taking place at the moment concerning pricing or, if I may use the jargon, the NFFO levy, that means that the public electricity suppliers, the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Department of Energy are at this moment scrutinising the draft arrangements.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I really cannot let this go. The noble Lord said that he wanted to return to the amendment. The amendment refers to renewable sources, which include not only renewable sources but also wind power. I was instancing another renewable source. The noble Lord asked whether I would like to put down a Question. I have put down Questions. I referred him to the debate on 21st February and also to what I said in the debate of last Wednesday. I have never had an answer from the Government as to what their attitude was and is towards the invention of Professor Salter which was found to be successful and is being used abroad. It was killed in 1982 in this country as a result of the false figures given for the price of nuclear power.
So long as renewable sources remain within the ambit of the nuclear lobby there is very little hope of us ever acquiring the sources of power which we have at our disposal, which have been proved elsewhere and which should be used in this country where they were invented and where the research was originally carried out. What will the Government do now to rectify the mistake that they made in 1982?
Lord Hesketh: I am sure that I can give this guarantee to the noble Lord: I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Department of Energy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has not addressed himself to the major issue of the economics of generating electricity by the use of renewable sources. As I said in my opening speech on the amendment, Germany has a programme for subsidy; the Netherlands have a programme for subsidy; Denmark has a programme for subsidy. The noble Lord said that discussions were going on in the context of the NFFO between Professor Littlechild and others. Until we have some clear guidance on whether the point I have made, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is to be met by the Government, we cannot believe that they are serious about encouraging the generation of energy from renewable sources.
I do not propose at this hour to divide the Committee. The opportunity for a debate was important. But I hope very much that before the Report stage the noble Lord will be able to give some indication of how those discussions are going and what the objective is and thereby assure the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and myself that we need not reproduce the amendment at Report. I assure him that if he does not do so we shall have another battle at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The first regulations under this section shall be made not later than five years from the coming into force of this section.").
The noble Lord said: It is essential that a reasonable timetable should be established for the complete integrated pollution control framework to come into force covering both new and existing processes. This would give a clear timetable for industry to work to and would establish a target date for HMIP to be fully resourced for the effective discharge of its new responsibilities.
The Government recognise the importance of this matter. They have published a timetable for specific sectors to be brought under control in a phased programme. The programme envisages completion by November 1994. However, the Bill itself lacks a specific commitment to a timetable for completion. This raises the danger of undue delay and slippage. It is worth recalling that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 did not come fully into force for a decade or more. Such a delay in connection with this Bill would be unacceptable both to the public and to industry.
Large parts of the Bill depend upon the Secretary of State for their enactment. Five years is a realistic time-scale for HMIP to become fully resourced, for technical guidance on BATNEEC to be completed and for emission and discharge limits in relation to any process prescribed under Clause 2, or any particular substance, to be set.
A specific commitment to that time-scale is needed in the Bill to keep up the pace of transition to IPC and to avoid a prolonged period of a two-tier system. In other words, it would prevent such sectors being covered by IPC, alongside others, escaping the new regulatory regime. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment which allows me to repeat to the Committee commitments which my honourable friend gave to the other place when the Bill came before that Chamber. I can assure noble Lords that we intend to bring in regulations to allow us to set up the system outlined in Part I of the Bill from the beginning of next year. This will mean that all new processes coming under integrated pollution control will be brought within the system early in 1991. Processes which are already in operation will be brought into the system gradually, and will stay under the present controls until this happens. We intend that the phased programme should be completed within the five years proposed in the amendment.
Noble Lords may be aware that we placed in the Library on 26th April a programme setting out our plans for implementation. The document sets out in schedules the time-tables for bringing categories of existing processes within the new Part I controls. In view of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Gisborough: I thank my noble friend for that reply. On the face of it, it sounds very satisfactory. Therefore, subject to reading it and obtaining further
854
advice on the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40A not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 46, at end insert ("and any plan shall be accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which shall include an assessment of the likely significant effects of the plan on the environment.").
The noble Lord said: If Members of the Committee will glance at the groupings list they will see that four of my amendments are grouped together. I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 and then I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 49.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 seek to introduce environmental assessment for national plans drawn up by the Secretary of State under Clause 3 of this Bill for the purposes of environmental protection. There is a very real reason for proposing this amendment, and if Members of the Committee will bear with me, I shall try to explain a complicated subject in the simplest possible terms.
In order to achieve sufficient reductions in atmospheric emissions, particularly those which contribute to acid rain, Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to draw up plans for installing flue gas desulphurisation equipment—or FGD as it is known—at specified coal-fired power stations. At present there is some uncertainty as to how the necessary reductions will be achieved. However, that does not affect the fact that some FGD equipment will have to be installed, even if it is not as much as previously envisaged.
Depending upon the mix of technologies chosen, the choice of the FGD process could have a considerable effect on the environment. It is therefore important that national plans for environmental protection should be assessed for their likely impact on the environment. Without trying to blind Members of the Committee with science, I should like to explain that there are two main FGD processes. There is a limestone-gypsum process and a regenerative process. The former is more environmentally damaging as it requires large quantities of quarried limestone and may produce large quantities of potentially unwanted gypsum, which will require sites for disposal.
Limestone is likely to come from some of our most scenic areas, including Yorkshire, Derbyshire, the Mendips and parts of County Durham. Both requirements would generate considerable transport impacts—as if we do not already have enough to contend with. The best known regenerative process—the Wellman-Lord process—uses sodium sulphite solution to remove sulphur dioxide from power station flue gas. That is then recycled for further use and produces the by-products of sulphur, liquid sulphur dioxide or sulphuric acid depending upon the markets available.
A regenerative plant is often more suited where there are existing chemical industries within the area. However, the quantities of raw materials used and by-products produced are much smaller than with the limestone/gypsum process. So it is the

855
different requirements of those processes which influence their environmental impact.
An environmental assessment of the national plan would allow the least environmentally damaging mix of technologies and processes to be chosen, and the most appropriate system for any particular installation to be identified. If FGD is to be fitted to several power stations as part of a national plan, an environmental assessment will help decide which technology should be used where. It may also identify other alternative solutions such as energy conservation, other fuel sources and cleaner electricity generating technologies.
The amendments will ensure that the Secretary of State produces an environmental assessment for such national plans and that the environmental statement, produced as part of that assessment, is made publicly available. That will benefit all parties concerned since it will be fully in line with the basic principle of environmental assessment: that of being applied at the earliest opportunity in the planning process.
I hope that the Government will be able to respond positively to the amendments. If so, we shall have an opportunity to take a lead in the European Community in extending the scope of environmental assessments and ensure that solutions to one environmental problem do not merely create others. That completes my explanation of Amendments Nos. 41 and 43.
I speak now to Amendments Nos. 47 and 49. It is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to include in the Bill provisions for strengthening environmental assessment. That is what I have tried to correct in a small way with these amendments that I am moving today.
Since implementation of environmental assessment in this country in July 1988 there have been concerns, among other things, over the quality of information provided in environmental statements. They are the documents which accompany planning applications for certain developments which are likely to have a significant impact on the environment. I believe that the quality of such statements is generally poor. My belief is further strengthened by a statement made by the CPRE which stated:
"All too frequently environmental statements are produced by developers as documents to endorse their particular proposals rather than to assess properly the likely impact of the proposal on the environment. Environmental assessments are often carried out too late and without adequate public consultation and participation, which should be an integral part of any environmental assessment".
In simple terms, that means that a developer can put in an application to a planning authority and support it with a glossy and impressive environmental statement which fails to identify the likely environmental impact, or covers it superficially and pretends that all will be well. The planners are faced with pretty pictures and promises of a few trees and lots of landscaping which may in the end add up to nothing. There will probably have been little or no consideration of alternative sites or projects.
However, there is no proper guidance to tell the planning authority what makes a good or bad environmental statement, and few authorities have the experience or expertise readily to hand.
A study by Manchester University earlier this year revealed that only one quarter of environmental statements sampled since 1988 could be regarded as satisfactory. Out of 70 statements sampled, 21 did not possess a non-technical summary—something that is required under the European Community directive on environmental assessment and under the implementing regulations. Without a non-technical summary, how can the public fully understand the likely impact of a particular development?
It is clear that the system of environmental assessment can have immense benefits where properly implemented. Unfortunately, there is no quality control in the system at present and many authorities have insufficient experience of the system or the necessary expertise to ensure a consistent approach throughout the country.
This amendment and the new clause would establish an environmental assessment monitoring unit in the Department of the Environment to oversee the implementation of environmental assessment and to provide the guidance that is desperately needed. The monitoring unit would be responsible for monitoring the quality of environmental statements and would establish guidelines and give advice regarding the content of environmental statements. That is woefully lacking at present.
Unless there is regular monitoring and control over the procedure, environmental assessments will fail to live up to expectations. There is a grave risk that the whole process will be brought into disrepute. That will be to no one's advantage. The implementation of environmental assessments must be improved and made to succeed.
That completes my explanation of all four amendments. I regret the absence of my supporter, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who left because she is ill. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has said virtually all there is to say, but I wish to support his amendments. There is a need to overcome what appears to be the inadequate integration of IPC with environmental assessment. He has given the reasons for that clearly. There is also a need to ensure that national plans for the purposes of environmental protection should be subject to environmental assessment. As the noble Lord said, at the end of the day, if the quality of that environmental assessment is not good enough, the whole exercise is worthless. To that end, we need an environmental assessment monitoring unit.
The noble Lord has covered every point that I wished to make. There is nothing more to be said at this late hour, except that I strongly support this group of amendments.
Baroness Lockwood: I also wish to support the noble Lord, particularly his Amendment No. 41. Earlier, we discussed primary and secondary pollution. Moving his amendment, the noble Lord referred to the extraction of limestone gypsum and the effect that that has on the environment, particularly in areas of outstanding beauty in some of our national parks. He did not refer to the secondary effects which should also be in the environmental statement. These areas are often somewhat remote from major roads. Enormous lorries carry the quarried limestone through the national parks, creating hazards and dangers to people enjoying the parks and other environmental problems. These should be taken fully into account in the assessment and included in the statement attached to the plan.
Lord Reay: Environmental assessment is an important technique. I am grateful to my noble friend for his amendments. As a result, we have looked again at the extent to which the method should be a required element of the Part I controls.
My honourable friend made plain in another place that applications for authorisation will be required to contain an evaluaton of the environmental effects of the proposed process. This will be especially important where processes are subject to integrated pollution control and where HMIP is involved in deciding the best practicable environmental option. I trust that the noble Lord will be happy with that commitment.
The amendment seeks to take the matter further by requiring the inclusion of an environmental statement in any plan made to limit national emissions of particular pollutants. I believe that we should be careful not to let our enthusiasm take us too far. I am sure that at the detailed level it will serve as a valuable tool for making soundly based decisions on applications for authorisation. However, we are not so convinced that formal detailed assessments have the same part to play in strategic level discussions such as those involved in making plans for national emission reductions. Having said that, I can assure the Committee that consideration of environmental advantages and disadvantages will form an essential part of devising any plan. In addition, we attach considerable importance to consulting widely on any plans which we intend to make under Clause 3(5). My department has already issued one consultation paper with general proposals for a national plan to reduce sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing large combustion plant. A further consultation paper will be published shortly, which will provide the opportunity for comment on our detailed proposals.
I now turn to the proposed environmental assessment monitoring unit. We are not convinced that we want to set up another quango. There are already various ways in which the quality of the environmental appraisals which accompany applications for authorisation will be monitored. First, enforcing authorities will need to be satisfied that they have been provided with adequate information on which to base their decision. Secondly, the public will have access to the papers
858
on the public register and I am confident that they will let my department know if they are dissatisfied with the information they find. Thirdly, if it seems that there may be a problem, Clause 19 gives my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the reserve power to call for papers.
As for advice on the content of environmental appraisals, I think it better that this is issued, as necessary, by the Secretary of State or by the chief inspector of HMIP. After careful consideration the Government are not persuaded that the bureaucracy involved in setting up an environmental assessment monitoring unit would be justified. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend will see fit not to press his amendments.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend for such a detailed response to all four amendments. I shall study carefully what he has said and how best to resolve the problems. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 2, after ("Gazettes") insert ("and in at least two newspapers circulating throughout the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 42 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. These three amendments are of a limited nature. All share the common theme of making more readily available to the general public information about what is going on in the plans under Clause 3 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 42 asks that rather than just having such plans published in the Gazettes of London, Edinburgh and Belfast they should also be published in two or more daily papers for the simple reason that most people do not read the Gazettes and they are not readily available. We are simply seeking to make information contained within those publications more available to a wider group of the general public.
Amendment No. 45 asks the Secretary of State, after making a plan, to make a period available when the general public can make submissions. This is totally at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 46 is probably the most reasonable and inoffensive amendment that it is possible to move. It merely asks that the general public be allowed to purchase the available documents that are on display. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are unnecessary since the principles underlying them are already well accepted by the Government. Indeed our firm commitment to public access must be clear to all who have read this Bill. But it may be that we would want to make the information available in ways other than those set out in this amendment, as I will explain in a moment.
I can assure the Committee that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make widely available details of any plans to be made under Clause 3(5) and any amendments to them. He will not rely simply on publication in the official

859
Gazettes. Nor will he seek to make plans without full consultation or without allowing the public to get copies of the detailed proposals.
The first such plan he intends to make will be in relation to the Large Combustion Plants Directive. A consultation paper setting out how the directive requirements for existing plant are to be implemented in the UK was issued last July and the Government shortly intend to issue a further consultation document setting out the quotas for individual plants. We expect that, as usual, the paper will attract wide press coverage and we will certainly be doing all we can to get the message across to as wide a public as may be interested. The information will therefore be widely and freely available.
There is accordingly no need for the Bill to specify how to make such information available, which is why we shall resist the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Addington: Having heard the noble Minister's reply I am more satisfied that the question of general public availability will be covered by the Government. Bearing in mind that I should like to read what the Minister has said to make sure that he has covered it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 5, at end insert:
("(8) Subject to any Order made after the passing of this Act by virtue of subsection (1)(a) of section 3 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the making and revision of plans under subsection (5) above shall not be a transferred matter for the purposes of that Act but shall for the purposes of subsection (2) of that section be treated as specified in Schedule 3 to that Act.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to ensure that, subject to any subsequent order made under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, any plan made or revised under Clause 3(5) to establish limits or quotas for national or regional releases of substances—for example, to implement the large combustion plants directive—can extend to Northern Ireland and is not to be treated as a transferred matter for the Province. The Government will therefore be able to take concerted action throughout the UK to tackle major problems of environmental pollution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause:
("Carbon dioxide emissions
. (1) The Secretary of State shall draw up a plan to achieve a reduction of total annual emissions of carbon dioxide, based on measurements of such emissions made in 1980 in the United Kingdom, of:

(a) 20 per cent. by 31st December 1999;

(b) 25 per cent. by 31st December 2004;

(c) 35 per cent. by 31st December 2010;

(d) 50 per cent. by 31st December 2020;

(2) The plan established in subsection (1) above may include—

(a) measures for the promotion of combined heat and power schemes;

(b) measures to promote the use of passive solar heating;

(c) provisions for progressive improvement in the design of new or improved building or heat generating products for energy efficiency;

(d) a programme to improve energy efficiency in the public sector;

(e) the introduction of least-cost planning in the electricity industry;

(f) a comprehensive programme of other energy efficiency measures, including a campaign to increase energy saving and the provision of grants to householders and others for specified energy saving measures;

(g) a programme of research and develoment into techniques for removing carbon dioxide from motor vehicle exhaust gases;

(h) increased provision for energy generation by sources that do not emit carbon dioxide or produce radioactive wastes.

(3) The plan established under subsection (1) above may include measures that achieve a proven increase in the absorption of carbon dioxide by natural means.
(4) The Secretary of State shall before establishing the plan under this clause consult with such persons and organisations as he deems appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: We return to the question of emissions which we were debating earlier, specifically carbon dioxide emissions. This amendment seeks to explore what we consider is the inadequate response of the Prime Minister to the report of the science working group of the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change issued on 1st June.
I call in aid the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who reported to the Committee earlier that it seems we have the support of Mr. Michael Heseltine on this issue. The Prime Minister pledged that Britain would achieve the very demanding target of stabilising total UK emissions of carbon dioxide at present levels by the year 2005 provided only that others do the same. I gather that her response and the details of how that target is to be met are to be left to the environment White Paper in the autumn.
No less a person than Dr. John Houghton, who is chief executive of Britain's Meteorological Office, is quoted in The Times of 2nd June as stating that if Mrs. Thatcher's stabilisation plans were repeated across the world, then world temperatures would in fact continue to rise, though not at such fast rates. Anyone who has heard our outgoing ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell, on this subject would agree that he is very convincing. I gather that he has some influence on the Prime Minister's thinking.
This amendment provides for very real and necessary reductions to take place. In promoting an annual plan it calls for measures to promote energy efficiency, the greater use of passive solar heating, combined heat and power schemes, a campaign to promote energy efficiency, grants for householders to carry out specified energy saving measures and a programme of research measures into the removal of carbon dioxide from motor exhausts.
Perhaps I may tell the Minister that I have tried to contribute a little. I have introduced solar energy in my fairly old cottage in the Shropshire hillsides,

861
and I can tell him that it is very successful. In fact, one can save a great deal of energy—gas in this case—when the sun is out. The amount of heat is quite amazing. Secondly, I have changed my car. I had a Mini Metro which I was very sad to get rid of. However, it was not possible to convert it to take lead free petrol. So I sold it and bought a car that did take lead free petrol. It is a great tragedy that some of the older British Leyland cars cannot be converted. So I have done my little bit. They are three small steps, and we ask other people to do the same. It is an issue on which Britain should give a lead if only our international colleagues would do the same. Slow improvements in energy efficiency are simply not sufficient to compensate for the dangers, excluding the benefits of greater economic activity and increased use of the car.
The amendment addresses itself to such matters. If energy efficiency is to be effected, it must be seen as a whole package rather than as a mix-and-match selection. No one policy option alone can ensure the necessary reduction in CO2 emissions. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: We have made clear our position on carbon dioxide emissions. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 25th May that, provided others are ready to take their full share we are prepared to stabilise our emissions of CO2 at current levels by the year 2005. That would mean a reduction of up to 30 per cent. in presently projected levels of CO2 emissions by the year 2005. We shall set out the kind of measures by which that target could be met in the environment White Paper in the autumn. I cannot pre-empt that.
However, I must point out that, in the areas described in Section 2 of the amendment, the Government have already taken action. The Energy Efficiency Office actively promotes the use of combined heat and power. We shall ensure that combined heat and power is not disadvantaged after the privatisation of the electricity industry. We support research and development into renewable energy sources. The Department of Energy expects to spend over £50 million on such projects over the next three years. The revision of the building regulations last April will improve the heating efficiency of new homes by 20 per cent. and we shall continue to support the emerging schemes for the energy labelling of houses. We have established a ministerial committee to oversee improvements in energy use in government buildings. That is set with a target of a 15 per cent. reduction in energy expenditure within five years.
The privatisation of the electricity industry will ensure that it supplies its customers in the most efficient way possible. We have taken many steps to promote energy efficiency. The Community insulation project has provided better standards in 700,000 homes and the EEO advises industry through its best practice programme. Such has been the success of the work that since 1979 we have produced 20 per cent. more GDP with no increase in energy use. We are urging the European
862
Commission to bring forward proposals to limit CO2 emissions from vehicles and encouraging it to discuss with the motor manufacturers the ways of improving vehicle efficiency. The non-fossil fuel obligation in the Electricity Act has given a tremendous boost to the commercial development of renewable energy, and the Department of Energy is now assessing the applications to fill that tranche.
The report of the science working group of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear the seriousness of the problem, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. It has also suggested that significant advances in our understanding will take until around 2005 to achieve. It is a demanding target, but we believe that it can be met while maintaining economic development. The amendment does not have the same basis in sound economics.
We are playing a leading role in international initiatives on climate change, both through the IPCC and through our call for an international convention on climate change. An effective response to that problem must be a truly international one. In that light, we shall continue to play a full, important and constructive part in working towards achieving that. A number of initiatives are already under way, which supersede the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
Baroness Nicol: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question about what he has just said. At the beginning he said that we were prepared to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide provided that others did their share. Does that mean that, if we are not satisfied with the share contributed by the others, we shall not make any plans to reduce our output of carbon dioxide? Is the reduction suggested by the Minister based on the present figure or on the figure in the year 2000?
Lord Hesketh: It is a reduction of 30 per cent. in the presently projected levels of CO2 emissions by the year 2005. However, in respect of the important point raised by the noble Baroness with regard to our share, the initiative that the Government have taken in all of their international commitments has been based on an international solution. That point has been raised time and again today, whether with regard to CFCs or the IPCC. We have always believed that there can only be one way forward and that is with agreement on an international basis. That is what is meant by the word "share".
Baroness Nicol: I quite understand that point. The Minister will appreciate that if we have to wait to see whether others have done their share, it means that we shall continue in our polluting ways until the year 2005, which is hardly desirable.
Lord Hesketh: Nothing could be further from the truth. We are already committed to an endeavour to improve. However, the fact is that we are talking about figures that have been agreed or are nearly agreed internationally. If we are to be in agreement, we have to have agreement with other parties apart from ourselves.
Lord Ross of Newport: We have given the whole subject of emissions a fairly good run. I agree with the Minister that this is a very serious matter. It is up to us all to keep up the pressure. I agree that the Government have had a change of heart in recent months and years, which is much to be grateful for, but we have to go a little faster than we are doing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Discharge and scope of functions]:
The Minister of State Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)The Minister of State Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden) moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("appropriate river purification authority") and insert ("river purification authority, as determined under regulations made under section 5(1) below")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 and 58. Amendments Nos. 50 and 55 are both purely drafting amendments and do not require any explanation. Amendment No. 58 is consequential upon amendments agreed in Committee for the application of Part I to Scotland. It adds to Clause 4(10) a reference to river purification authorities. That is necessary because Scottish river purification authorities are to be enforcing authorities for the purpose of Part I and thus should be under the same duty to comply with directions from the Secretary of State as are other enforcing authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: As I endeavoured to be helpful to the Government earlier this afternoon, I hope that I shall not be thought malicious in posing a question that I should have asked some time ago. It is a point that I should have noticed long ago perhaps. One of the advantages of long sittings in the Chamber is that one reads Bills in more detail perhaps than one has done previously.
I am genuinely puzzled. The clause to which the amendment is addressed says that these functions are to be carried out in England and Wales by the chief inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. But so far as concerns Scotland they are to be carried out either by the chief inspector so appointed for Scotland or by the appropriate river purification authority. I notice in the Notes on Clauses that it says that in Scotland the functions are to be exercised jointly by the chief inspector similarly appointed for Scotland and the appropriate river purification authority, although in the Act itself the words "or of are added and it seems clear that there is an alternative.
The reason for my curiosity is that when, in the early stages of consideration of this Bill—and indeed of the Government's initial proposals—the National Rivers Authority expressed a desire that perhaps it should be left as the principal authority responsible for protecting the water environment (and it advanced the argument that it would be perfectly possible to have a system of integrated pollution control which left the major responsibility for water with the National Rivers Authority, or which at least
864
entitled the National Rivers Authority to include its own authorisation in the authorisation for IPC issued by the inspectorate), the authority was told no, that would not be possible because the whole principle of integrated pollution control must be that there is one organisation to set the standards, monitor and enforce them. Yet I suddenly notice that in Scotland apparently that principle is being ignored and that in Scotland there is to be a division of those responsibilities between the chief inspector and the river purification authority.
I am bound to say that I wonder why the river purification authorities in Scotland should be entrusted with those responsibilities while in England they are being taken away from the National Rivers Authority, created only a short time ago by a specific Act of Parliament to carry out the major responsibility for looking after the water environment.
I know that we are always told that life is different in Scotland and that many factors must be handled differently in Scotland. However, I shall be interested to hear the arguments. I shall then be able to judge the soundness of the case that was put so cogently to me many months ago about the structure of the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may speak briefly. On the advice that I have received and from the information that I have sought, perhaps this matter should be stressed. Clause 4(3) refers to the,
"pollution of the environment due to the release of substances into the air".
That concerns a local function in relation to a local authority. However, the inspector and the National Rivers Authority take over control with regard to water.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My noble friend is right in noting a difference in the way that the new controls in Part I of the Bill will operate north and south of the border. The Government take the view that the polluting substances to be controlled, and the standards to be observed in exercising the controls, should be the same throughout Great Britain. However, the adoption of common aims does not imply the standardisation of the agencies and the machinery by which they are to be achieved.
In Scotland we started from a very different position from that which existed in England and Wales. For over 35 years we have had a decentralised system of control over discharges to water operated by the river purification authorities. Seven independent boards are responsible for regulating the quality of the water environment throughout mainland Scotland. They have established expertise and are experienced in carrying out an independent regulatory function. Within central government in Scotland, Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate, based in Edinburgh, exercises the statutory role of enforcement as regards air pollution and radioactive substances. It performs many, but not all, of the functions of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in England and Wales.
The situation in Scotland is therefore rather different from that in England and Wales where

865
there is a newly established National Rivers Authority—and I do not need to tell my noble friend anything about that.
In introducing the new system of pollution control for Scotland, we have therefore retained the key role of the river purification authorities. Both the river purification authorities and the chief inspector—who will in practice be head of Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate—will act as enforcing authorities for the purposes of Part I of the Bill in Scotland. This interlocking system will not undermine the concept of a one-stop shop. An application for an authorisation to operate a prescribed process will be made to only one enforcing authority. The appropriate river purification authority and the chief inspector will consult each other before dealing with any application.
The question of which plays the leading role will depend on the nature of the process and where the main expertise in dealing with it lies. We shall spell out exactly who should lead on which type of process in regulations under the Bill.
These proposals were the subject of a consultation paper issued by the Scottish Office in July last year. It was quite separate from the consultation paper issued by the Department of the Environment on Part I as regards England and Wales. It is only fair to say that a sizable minority of our respondents favoured an approach whereby all authorisations will be issued by Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate mainly on the ground that this will provide greater uniformity throughout Great Britain. However, a majority of respondents recognises the merits of building on the established system in Scotland. The Confederation of British Industry welcomed our proposals to use both the river purification authorities and Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate as enforcing authorities, as did the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The proposed system of pollution control in Scotland will therefore be responsive to local needs, yet will enforce similar standards to those which will apply elsewhere in Great Britain. It will build on the strength of the existing system north of the Border while enabling higher standards and tighter controls to be enforced within a co-ordinated and interlocking framework. I know of my noble friend's interest in these matters. I thought it only fair that I should spell out exactly what the situation will be after the Bill is passed.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I noted what he said about the independent river purification authorities and their 35 years experience. I hope that he is not suggesting that the National Rivers Authority, which is the largest independent environmental enforcement agency in Europe, is not equally qualified to look after the waters in England.
I air grateful to my noble friend for producing a case which clearly establishes that no difference of principle is involved. It shows that the same kind of
866
solution could have been adopted in England, despite the arguments that were advanced against it. As we face the undoubted complexities of the present arrangement we must bear in mind that in Scotland the Government have clearly established a principle that could have been followed in England if they had so chosen.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: There is a great deal in the point made by my noble friend. The provision introduces a divided control instead of one easily recognisable control. In giving his excellent explanation, my noble friend said that the standards would be similar. He said that with a precision which made me believe that he was reading from his considered notes. The standards should be the same. The word "similar" can give the impression that there is no diversion.
We shall have more time to discuss the issue but at this stage I have sympathy with the intervention of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. We set up the National Rivers Authority and gave it great responsibilities and power. We have used it to answer many complaints. Therefore, it is a pity that even by a hint we should give the impression that it will not have the same control in Scotland as it has in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Burton: I am a member of a river purification authority in Scotland and I appreciate the Minister's comment that the authorities have worked well. I believe that he is correct and I was relieved to hear that the Government do not intend to interfere with the river purification authorities in Scotland in spite of some of my noble friend's objections.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I did not presume to say anything derogatory, if that was the impression that I gave in my remarks about the National Rivers Authority. Of course it is a worthy newcomer to the scene and I have no doubt that it is well managed. The way in which it works out in practice will remain to be seen.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I agree that I referred to similar standards. I said:
"yet enforce similar standards to those which will apply elsewhere in Great Britain".
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to the fact that we in Scotland see the provision as our solution to the problem which faces us. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Burton for agreeing with the Government's contention that the situation in Scotland is best served by the means which will be forthcoming as a result of the passing of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall satisfy himself in each of the first five years of the operation of this Part that the resources available to the chief inspector and to local enforcing authorities are adequate to enable them to carry out their functions in the manner most conducive to the reduction of pollution and the

867
conservation and improvement of the environment and in particular shall take account of—

(a) the adequacy of resources available to the inspector and authorities in respect of specialist and other staff and equipment;

(b) initial costs in relation to staffing, equipment and training; and

(c) the extent to which local enforcing authorities may, whether by arrangement with the inspector or otherwise, undertake activities arising from initial applications for authorisations in their area.").

The noble Lord said: It will be seen that this amendment requires the Government to tell us where the money is coming from. We know where it is needed. It is needed by local enforcement agencies—local authorities—as well as the inspectorate.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that the noble Lord is speaking to Amendment No. 59 which deals with local authorities. Amendment No. 52 deals with HMIP.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I can assure the Minister that I am speaking to Amendment No. 52, but I probably used words more appropriate to Amendment No. 59. I shall not start again because it was all good stuff and tomorrow Members of the Committee can read what I said.
I am not disputing the raison d'être for the Bill. However, fine words appear in print and then the local authorities or HMIP will be called upon to carry on the job. This amendment is asking the Government to say whether they are in a position to undertake that the money which is required will be available. Let us bear in mind that start-up expenditure will be required over and above normal specific grant purposes. Can the Minister assure people outside the Committee that the money needed to get the show on the road will be provided? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I knew from our Second Reading debate that we would return to the subject of the resources of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.
Let me underline our commitment and assure the Committee, as my right honourable and honourable friends have done in the other place, that HMIP will have the resources it needs to do the job. When it was created in 1987, HMIP had 148 staff in post. It now has 200, and 105 of them are inspectors and professionals. We have recently raised HMIP's complement to 250 and we are recruiting actively. Eight posts in the increased complement have already been reserved for successful candidates from the interviews that have already taken place. Inspectors' salaries were increased by 28 per cent. last autumn. Staff numbers and salaries are both kept under review.
By introducing higher standards of pollution control the Government have raised the stakes in this area. As industry gears up to new requirements the demand for high calibre professionals—the market in which HMIP is competing—is increased. Recruitment is not just about pay, as recruitment consultants would tell the Committee. Good people look for jobs which stretch and develop them to the
868
full. The inspectorate is also carrying out a review of aspects of its professional career structure such as career management and development, and training. The study, which is being undertaken by outside consultants, will also cover the inspectorate's recruitment targeting and procedures.
Those are not the measures of an organisation in decline but those of one determined to meet a challenge. HMIP has also recently introduced an additional recruitment grade of assistant pollution inspector. This grade is aimed at candidates with the same honours degree qualification as pollution inspectors but with a shorter period of industrial experience. This initiative will broaden the pool from which future inspectors can be drawn, while maintaining the same high standards which HMIP rightly insists on and which industry expects.
The noble Lord's amendment mentioned training. Here too the inspectorate is taking action, not only in providing internal training on IPC but also in developing plans for a post-graduate M.Sc course in integrated pollution management at the University of Manchester's Institute of Science and Technology. The inspectorate and the university are looking forward to the course, which will be of benefit to both industry and local government. We have already published an implementaton timetable for IPC. That shows the commitment in the inspectorate to getting the new pollution control regime up and running.
I hope that in view of those assurances the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not intend to press the amendment, but the Minister's response causes genuine puzzlement. We do not simply want men and women to carry out functions; we need to understand that resources are available to provide opportunities for developing a strategy and the means whereby the job can be carried out.
It is no use—I say this in all seriousness to the Minister—trying to do something which is fine and laudable, which is to the Government's credit, but trying to do it on the cheap. The Government certainly appreciate what we are saying, but I am afraid that they are looking to obtain what they need on the cheap. We shall have to read carefully what the Government have said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("or river purification authority") and insert ("and river purification authorities").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the enforcing authorities in discharging any of their functions under this Act to so exercise their powers as to—

(a) further the conservation of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiograph

869
features of special interest and the protection of sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest; and

(b) ensure, so far as possible, that any authorisation includes such conditions as to mitigate any adverse effect which the process may have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.").

The noble Lord said: There are a number of clear omissions in Part I of the Bill. Of concern to me is the lack of a general environmental duty on the enforcing authorities to further conservation and amenity when exercising their powers under the Bill.
When giving authorisation for certain levels of emissions from a process, the enforcing authority should take into account the likely impact of that process on wildlife, the countryside and amenity before establishing limits for individual applications. The authorities should set authorisations so that conservation and amenity are furthered and not damaged. For instance, if a process would result in pollutants affecting an important wildlife habitat, that should clearly have a bearing on the levels of emissions allowed.
I am particularly concerned by the status of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. HMIP is a part of the Department of the Environment and as such is not subject to the stringent environmental duties of such bodies as the National Rivers Authority. I do not wish to enter into the debate of who should have jurisdiction over discharges of dangerous substances into water, HMIP, or RNA. However, as proposed, the Government intend that HMIP should take over from the NRA authorisation for integrated pollution control for such substances. What worries me is that the HMIP does not have a strong environmental duty to further conservation and amenity.
Imagine the following scenario: a company may apply to HMIP for authorisation for the release of various wastes, one of which may go to landfill. The disposal site envisaged by the company to deal with its waste is adjacent to an important wetland, notable as a bird feeding ground. Leachate from the waste could contaminate the food chain and so damage the feeding bird populations. Alternative disposal sites or forms of disposal may result in considerably less impact on the environment and would therefore be preferable. It is surely right that HMIP, in this instance, should consider the likely disposal routes and their impacts before authorising the release of such waste. That would be the outcome of this amendment.
The amendment would, irrespective of who is the enforcing authority—whether HMIP, the local authority or the NRA—ensure that all the enforcing authorities have a duty to further conservation and amenity and to place conditions on authorisations to mitigate any harmful effects arising from that process. That seems to me only prudent.
The amendment would impose an environmental duty on regulatory authorities. Since those authorities are to operate a system of environmental protection, at the very least they should all be operating within a framework of clear environmental duties when exercising their powers. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: I support this amendment. In doing so, I can do no better than quote from the Nature Conservancy Council's document on the Bill which has been sent to a number of noble Lords. It states:
"The NCC supports a properly resourced and operationally effective system of pollution control. We also consider that pollution control efforts should be directed to the achievement of a better quality environment in terms of flora and fauna, and that the special requirements of plants and animals should be taken into account by pollution control bodies.
"We have pointed out to the Department of the Environment that the National Rivers Authority has a duty to further conservation when consenting to discharges and is required to consult the NCC over discharges likely to affect Sites of Special Scientific Interest. By contrast, the Chief Inspector, who is taking over responsibility from the NRA for several hundred prescribed discharges, does not have these conservation duties."
If the Nature Conservancy Council feels so strongly about this matter, there is no better voice to use in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Lord Ross of Newport: I add my support to this amendment. It is important that an amendment of this nature should be written into the Bill so that there is no misunderstanding. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, on tabling this amendment. I very much hope that we will receive a favourable response from the Minister because that would set many minds at rest. It is desperately important that the situation is not weakened by this measure.
Lord Reay: We have considered whether the enforcing authorities should be under a specific obligation to further the conservation of flora and fauna. However, we have concluded that such an obligation would not add anything to the duties to which the enforcing authorities are already subject in setting the conditions of an authorisation.
Under Clause 7 the authorities must ensure the use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to prevent or minimise the release of prescribed substances and to render harmless the release of all substances. That must be a pretty good start in furthering conservation. The authorities will also be under a duty to set conditions in order to implement EC and other international obligations relating to environmental protection. That is not all. They will also be under an obligation to ensure compliance with environmental quality standards and objectives and any plans made under Clause 3 of this Bill.
In particular, the use of BATNEEC which will be used to prevent or minimise releases of prescribed substances and rendering all releases harmless, taken together with the objective of achieving the best practicable environmental option, will protect the whole environment including flora and fauna. We do not see—and, I may say, neither do our legal advisers—how any amendment (including this one) specifically devoted to furthering conservation could be drafted which would not cut across the other duties and objectives in Clause 7. I think that clause gives us everything we need to ensure the furtherance of conservation. Furthermore, I shall be making clear in my reply to a later amendment that we will

871
be consulting the NCC on applications for authorisations which bear upon sites of special scientific interest.
The first part of the amendment before us contains similarities to Section 8(1) of the Water Act 1989; but that section referred to general environment and recreational duties such as managing land holdings and conserving fish stocks which are appropriate to, say, water undertakers, but not to HMIP which does not manage land.
The second part of the amendment is superfluous. Not that I am belittling conservation; far from it. It is just that the whole of Part I of the Bill, and the prior authorisation system established under it, is about setting conditions which will protect the environment. We have placed not just one but many duties on the enforcing authorities to ensure that the whole environment, including of course flora and fauna, is protected. In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend for a very full explanation. I shall read carefully what he said and I may try to come back at the next stage with something on which we can both agree. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 7, line 23, after ("inspector") insert "(, river purification authorities").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may detain the Committee for a moment. I was proposing to attempt to establish that there was to be a provision in the Bill to create a clear lead body in the arrangements for the integrated pollution control. To a large extent that will depend on the understanding and the understandings of the authorities involved.
It is possible that there may be some confusion and misunderstanding over their different responsibilities for any given situation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Norrie gave an example of that. The example I give is where a discharge might come under the control of either the inspectorate of pollution or the National Rivers Authority. One can envisage situations where the Health and Safety Executive or other authorities might be involved.
It is still not clear to me which authority will lead in decisions about discharge conditions, and so on. During our Second Reading debate the Government stated that their research had shown them that in all cases a fully integrated system of control, with a single authorisation for all aspects of the process, was felt necessary. The Government said that the NRA will,
"retain responsibility for sustaining the quality of controlled waters and will have the powers to translate its requirements on discharges to water into the consents issued by HMIP".
872
That does not seem entirely clear nor indeed satisfactory. After all, in a given case that may allow the inspectorate to overrule the decisions made by the NRA, which is clearly the body with particular expertise in this field. What I seek is some assurance that the roles of all authorities will be clearly laid out before implementation and that any memorandum of understanding will be agreed by both bodies concerned and that it will properly address the issue.
Since I have not discussed this matter with my noble friend the Minister, it may be that he will prefer to write to me on this issue before we meet again later in the year. Depending on his response either tonight or at that time, I may wish to put down an amendment to secure the assurance I seek for the reasons I have described to the Committee.
Lord Hesketh: At this late hour I take advantage of my noble friend's offer to receive a written communique. I am sure that he will find the contents of it satisfactory.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
(".Government assistance for Part I duties.
("—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in any statement as to the allocation of revenue support grant under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 in respect of a financial year in which functions are exercisable by local enforcing authorities under this Part, set out the basis of allocation of grants calculated in relation to such functions having regard to the matters specified in subsection (2) below.
(2) The matters to which any statement as is referred to in subsection (1) above shall refer include—

(a) the appropriateness or otherwise of an allocation based on general needs to the level of activities arising under this Act; and

(b) the desirability or otherwise of an allocation based on the distribution of population in the area.").

The noble Lord said: If in moving this amendment I begin by saying that it is about the details of local authority finance, I think that perhaps I should pause in order to allow the Chamber to empty. I realise that this is not an issue which, at nearly five minutes to midnight, arouses enthusiasm among Members of the Committee.
Nevertheless, the issue is of considerable importance and it is not one that will go away if we do not tackle it. At the moment we are talking only about Part I of the Bill. Even in that part alone, and without referring to later parts, there are substantial duties and burdens placed on local authorities. There is very little indication of what resources will be available to them; how they are to meet that expenditure or how that will affect other items of expenditure in the same expenditure block as far as concerns the revenue support grant. What is required is a recognition by government that there are these new duties. In many ways they are not as extensive as some that we should have liked and some that we have been proposing. Nevertheless, they are there.
Will the Government recognise the extent to which these new duties will cost money? Will that recognition be reflected in RSG? Will the

873
Government ensure that the new duties do not place a burden on poll tax payers nationally? I should have thought that this argument would have considerable resonance with Ministers at the moment. They must still be agonising every day of the week about the alternatives to the poll tax or the modifications to the poll tax which have been promised to us and which are awaited with baited breath by poll tax payers on a weekly, a daily or even an hourly basis. Quite apart from the national burden on poll tax payers and the national effect on local authority finances, will the Government ensure that the distribution to individual authorities reflect their different needs? In other words, will they ensure that those characteristics of local authorities which affect the expenditure that they will have to incur on environmental protection are taken into account in the RSG settlement?
We do not yet have adequate figures of what the cost of the environmental protection obligations will be to local authorities. The best that we can do is to look at the local authorities' side and the argument that they are putting to what is called the Other Services Block Service Working Group—the joint body of the local authority associations and central government—which is considering the effect on the other services group. The "other services" are basically those elements of local authority expenditure which are not included under the major headings of education, housing, social services and so on.
The best estimate that local authorities can make for 1992 is that the litter provisions will involve an increased cost of between £250 million and £330 million in total and that waste collection and disposal will be seriously affected because of the cost of monitoring and dealing with former tip sites. The Committee will be aware of the fact that well over 1,000 tips in this country contain potentially dangerous waste. That aspect could involve several hundred million pounds of expenditure. The other general environmental proposals in the Bill are estimated to cost £43·5 million.
I stress that these figures are not accepted by the Government at this stage. These figures are what the local authority associations, which have a very good understanding of the matter, are putting to the Government and are arguing should be included in the forthcoming RSG settlement. But the danger is that, first, there will not be enough money in total for these purposes; and, secondly, that they will be submerged in the other services group and that therefore there will be an unacceptable squeeze on other services group expenditure. We believe that it is necessary to include this new clause in order to protect not only expenditure on environmental protection—that is clearly an important part of it—but also to protect expenditure on other items in the other services group. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: Do the figures for local authority expenditure given by the noble Lord apply to the whole of the United Kingdom or just to England and Wales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My best understanding is that the figures will apply to England and Wales. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has not, so far as I know, contributed to the figures. If I am wrong, I shall certainly do what Ministers say and write to the noble Lord.
12 midnight
Lord Hesketh: I drew attention in regard to an earlier amendment to the work already underway in HMIP for the implementation of IPC. I know too that local authorities are equally determined to make progress with the new air pollution control regime established under this part of the Bill as shown through their contribution to the committee already set up to co-ordinate enforcement of the new controls and to the drafting of local authority guidance notes aimed at ensuring consistency of enforcement practice.
Local authorities have, for a long time, been pressing for stronger powers of control over industrial and other sources of air pollution and the proposed new controls have generally been welcomed. Under the new controls local authorities will be responsible for substantially the same processes as now. Therefore, it will largely be a matter of replacing, not adding to, existing control functions under the clean air and public health Acts.
The costs of the new prior approval system will be met by the cost recovery charging system to be introduced in parallel with the IPC charging system. As the charging scheme will cover cost, revenue support grant implications should not arise. The intention is that across the country local authorities will recoup reasonable expenditure on authorising, inspecting and enforcing control, including necessary monitoring and related administration. It will of course be for local authorities to decide the precise numbers of staff and the technology they need to administer the scheme. But it is right too that the charge should be consistent throughout the country, and that the scheme should provide for the same charge from Arundel to Abergavenny and Yeovil to York. That is why we are currently discussing with the local authority associations the appropriate level of charges to set in the first year. We will also be issuing a public consultation paper on this subject within the next few weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the other services block and then moved on to mention tips and litter. I think it is fair to point out that this amendment distinctly refers to Part I of the Bill and not to those parts and costs which we shall no doubt deal with as we proceed to discuss other parts of the legislation which he mentioned when speaking to his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is only out of keen sense of consideration for Members of the Committee that I did not do what I could have done which is to spell out the obligations which exist on local authorities under Part I of the Bill. I have with me a whole page of them. I could have started by saying that under Clause 6(3) they have to deal with applications for authorisations by requiring relevant

875
information which is covered by Schedule 1, paragraph 1(1) and (3). They have to deal with publicising and consultation under Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1). They have to consider representations under Schedule 1, paragraph 2(5). They have to determine whether the applicant can comply with the proposed authorisation conditions under Clause 6(4), and so on. In fact, in reciting those requirements I have made a bare start in dealing with the obligations which are imposed upon local authorities. They are not obligations which local authorities are resisting; that is not the point I am trying to make. However, they are obligations which will affect local authorities' ability to deal with the other obligations which they have in the other services group, many of which are obligations imposed upon them by statute. Therefore, local authorities will not be able to get out of them that easily.
I return now to the issue which is really fundamental to the ability of local authorities to achieve what government want them to achieve in Part I of the Bill. They need not only the assurance that the total amount of resources will be available for this purpose; they also need to know that the criteria used in the standard spending assessments for distributing the amount of expenditure which the Government wishes to see actually reflect the differences between one local authority and another in the scale of the obligations which they will have.
This requirement is of particular importance because the gearing of local authority expenditure is now such that every additional pound spent by a local authority which is not matched by government grant will in effect mean at least an additional £4 on the poll tax. Indeed, in many cases it will mean more like an extra £7. The result will be an intolerable burden on local poll tax payers. This is an issue which the Government are now facing because they are already having to revise their poll tax proposals.
Clearly this is not a matter which we shall pursue to a Division at this stage. The Minister has promised that we shall see the consultation paper by the end of July. That will enable us to have a much more soundly based debate when we return to this matter, as we shall have to, on Report in October. My fears have not been allayed by the Minister's response. The indications that he has given about further information are welcome but they do not show any change of heart on this matter which is of fundamental importance to local authority expenditure. In the circumstances, and bearing in mind the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Further provisions as to discharge and scope of functions: Scotland]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 44, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Earl said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61. The amendments do not add any new principles to Clause 5, rather they concern how the consultation
876
between the chief inspector of the HMIPI and the river purification authorities will work in practice under the interlocking system of pollution control that we propose for Scotland in Part I.
Amendment No. 60 is purely a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 61 changes Clause 5 so as to specify in more detail the matters to be covered by the regulations issued by the Secretary of State which will prescribe details of the consultation process.
The new subsection (1A) of Clause 5 states that the regulations will prescribe the circumstances in which consultations will be carried out. We intend that HMIPI and the RPAs will consult one another on all aspects of applications for authorisations that they receive. The consulted authority will have an opportunity to require conditions to be included in the authorisations. Thereafter the authorities will consult one another on all material events or actions which affect an authorisation. The only circumstances in which consultation will not be needed will be minor changes which will not affect the interests of the consulted authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 7, line 45, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) if the functions are determined under paragraph (a) above to be functions of a river purification authority, the river purification authority by whom they are to be exercised.
(1A) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing—

(a) the circumstances and manner in which consultation shall be carried out between—

(i) whichever of the chief inspector or river purification authority is determined under regulations made under subsection (1) above to be the enforcing authority, and

(ii) the other (the "consulted authority"),

before granting, varying, transferring or revoking an authorisation or serving an enforcement or prohibition notice;

(b) the circumstances in which the consulted authority may require the enforcing authority to include, in an authorisation, conditions which the consulted authority reasonably believe will achieve the objectives specified in section 7(2) below.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Authorisations: general provisions]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 8, line 13, after ("with") insert ("Part I of")
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 66–68, 70, 73, 94, 95, 98, 99 and 101–103. This long series of amendments is paving and consequential to Amendment No. 73, and achieves a relatively simple change to the Bill. It applies to the procedures already provided for in Schedule 1 for public consultation on applications for new authorisations, also to the procedures for applications for variations or a proposed substantial change, whether on the

877
initiative of the enforcing authority or the operator. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 8, line 20, after ("applicant") insert ("has assessed the likely effects of the process on the environment in an adequate manner and")
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment upon which I hope my noble friend will look favourably. The Minister and the Under-Secretary in another place stated on separate occasions that they had considerable sympathy with the spirit of the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that adequate information is provided by an applicant under integrated pollution control about the likely environmental effects of the process for which authorisation is being sought. That information would then form part of the application which would appear on the public register.
Clearly it is essential that the enforcing authority is given the fullest information about environmental effects before authorisation is given. We are not debating the principle behind the amendment because the Government have already accepted it. They stated that such a requirement would form part of the regulations to be made under Schedule 1. The debate is about whether that requirement should be buried deep in regulations or should, as I believe, be written on the face of the Bill. All too frequently we see important pieces of legislation left to regulations, and the need to furnish an assessment of the likely effects of an industrial polluting process is a fundamental part of integrated pollution control. Otherwise, how is it to arrive at the desired aim? That is, the minimisation of all pollutants and therefore the minimisation of environmental impacts. Such should be written on to the face of the Bill.
As a hypothetical example, imagine an industrial company manufacturing electrical parts. It may be producing a variety of dangerous wastes for release into water. It is quite clear that the company should provide an adequate assessement of the likely effects of those wastes on the environment to the enforcing authority as part of its application. This amendment would make the requirement abundantly clear and it would be on the face of the Bill.
Above all, it is required for avoidance of doubt. If it is put on the face of the Bill, it would make an important statement of intent, reinforce the preventive nature of IPC and signal unambiguously the importance of marshalling the necessary information before authorisation is given. I urge my noble friend to accept this small but important amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I agree with my noble friend that an application must contain an adequate assessment of the likely effects of the process on the environment. My honourable friends in another place stated that it is our intention that such an assessment must be included in an application for an authorisation which will be required in regulations made under
878
Schedule 1. It is those regulations that will set out the detail of the application. The assessment referred to by the noble Lord in his amendment will be one feature among many. Rather than pick on one feature to include in the Bill, we should prefer that all the detail of the application procedure be governed by the one enabling power in Schedule 1 to the Bill.
We should also take into account the additional power in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 which allows an enforcing authority to require an applicant for an authorisation to furnish such further information supporting an application as the authority may require. If therefore an application did not contain an adequate assessment of the likely environmental effects of the process, we already have the powers to require it to be provided. I think it is preferable to give the applicant a second chance to provide this information rather than automatically to reject the application, as the amendment envisages.
However, I quite agree with my noble friend that if information vital to an application is not provided at all, then the enforcing authority should have the right to refuse to proceed with the application. This is provided for in paragraph 1(4) of the schedule.
I hope that in the light of an assurance that an assessment of the environmental effects of the process will be included in the application and my explanation of the powers of Schedule 1 to the Bill, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful to my noble friend once again for a full explanation. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Authorisations for Processes: Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 66 to 68:
Page 142, line 3, at end insert:
("PART I: GRANT OF AUTHORISATIONS").
Page 142, line 27, leave out ("these persons") and insert ("the persons so consulted").
Page 143, line 3, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2)").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 143, line 26, leave out ("that section") and insert ("either of those sections").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 69, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 71 and 72. These are purely drafting amendments designed to clarify the existing references in paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1 to the local government Acts. I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for pointing out the need for clarification in this paragraph. I hope that he will agree that these amendments achieve that aim. I beg to move.
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful. That is all I want to say.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 143, line 27, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:
Page 143, line 28, leave out ("that section") and insert ("either of those sections and, in relation to England and Wales,").
Page 143, line 28, after ("(4)") insert ("of the said section 250").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 143, line 52, at end insert:
("PART II: VARIATION OF AUTHORISATIONS
Variations by the enforcing authority
(6.—(1) The requirements of this paragraph apply where an enforcing authority has decided to vary an authorisation under section 10 and is of the opinion that any action to be taken by the holder of the authorisation in consequence of the variation will involve a substantial change in the manner in which the process is being carried on.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the enforcing authority shall give notice of the action to be taken by the holder of the authorisation to the persons who are prescribed or directed to be consulted under this paragraph and shall do so within the specified period for notification; and the holder shall advertise the action in the manner prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, exempt any class of variation from all or any of the requirements of this paragraph.
(4) Any representations made by the persons so consulted within the period allowed shall be considered by the enforcing authority in taking its decision.
(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above—

(a) persons are prescribed to be consulted on any description of variation if they are persons specified for the purposes of variations of that description in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(b) persons are directed to be consulted on any particular variation if the Secretary of State specified them in a direction given to the enforcing authority;

and the "specified period for notification" is the period specified in the regulations or in the direction.
(6) Any representations made by any other person within the period allowed shall also be considered by the enforcing authority in taking its decision.
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below, the period allowed for making representations is:

(a) in the case of persons prescribed or directed to be consulted, the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which notice was given under sub-paragraph (2) above, and

(b) in the case of other persons, the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of the advertisement under sub-paragraph (2) above.

(8) The Secretary of State may, by order, substitute for the period for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (7)(a) or (b) above, such other period as he considers appropriate.
Applications for variations
7.—(1) The requirements of this paragraph apply where an application is made to an enforcing authority under section 11(4) for the variation of an authorisation.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the enforcing authority shall give notice of any such application for a variation of an authorisation, enclosing a copy of the application, to the persons who are prescribed or directed to be consulted under this paragraph and shall do so within the specified period for notification; and the holder of the authorisation shall advertise the application in the manner prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, exempt any class of application from all or any of the requirements of this paragraph.
(4) Any representations made by the persons so consulted within the period allowed shall be considered by the enforcing authority in determining the application.
(5) For the purpose of sub-paragraph (2) above—

(a) persons are prescribed to be consulted on any description of application for a variation if they are persons specified for the purposes of applications of that description in regulations made by the Secretary of State;

(b) persons are directed to be consulted on any particular application if the Secretary of State specified them in a direction given to the enforcing authority;

and the "specified period for notification" is the period specified in the regulations or in the direction.
(6) Any representation made by any other person within the period allowed shall also be considered by the enforcing authority in determining the application.
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below, the period allowed for making representations is—

(a) in the case of persons prescribed or directed to be consulted, the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which notice of the application was given under sub-paragraph (2) above; and

(b) in the case of other persons, the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date on which the making of the application was advertised in pursuance of sub-paragraph (2) above.

(8) The Secretary of State may, by order, substitute for the period for the time being specified in sub-paragaraph (7)(a) or (b) above, such other period as he considers appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conditions of authorisations]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 8, line 38, leave out ("condition") and insert ("conditions").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 74, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 and 81. Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are paving amendments. The main amendment is Amendment No. 81 which introduces the requirement to provide a performance bond on the part of those who wish to carry out some operations which are liable to cause some pollution if not properly carried out. The effect of the amendment would be to incorporate within the conditions under which authorisations will be issued a duty on those applying for such authorisations to prevent by such means as are reasonably necessary the occurrence of pollution as a consequence of the carrying on of those activities for which authorisation is sought.
Taken in conjunction with Clauses 15, 16 and 22 relating to the powers for enforcement of authorisations and for the avoidance of pollution

881
where there is an imminent danger of it occurring, the amendment would complete the placing of the financial onus of pollution prevention and of subsequent cleaning up on the producer. Its purpose is to give full effect to the principle that the polluter pays. That principle is only partly provided for by the Bill as it currently stands. I should have thought the Government might feel kindly disposed to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord has explained his case for requiring that those authorised to carry on a Part I process should pay a sum of money to the enforcing authority before commencing operations. This would be repaid upon completion of a programme of works designed to prevent pollution. I confess that I am not completely clear how the system would work in practice. How, for example, would it affect the vast majority of existing operators, whose processes are already underway?
I sympathise with what I understand to be the purpose of these amendments, which is that operators of prescribed businesses and processes should take all reasonable measures when constructing their plant to prevent pollution, in line with the requirements of the enforcing authority. But what I am unable to understand is what these amendments achieve in addition to the provisions of Part I as currently drafted. The whole of the IPC system is expressly designed to ensure that all that can reasonably be achieved by way of prevention, minimisation and rendering harmless of emissions, will be achieved.
The enforcing authority will secure this by requiring the use of BATNEEC to these very ends in setting the conditions within the authorisation. And since the operator cannot operate without this authorisation, and without meeting the conditions within it, it follows that he is already automatically required before commencing operations to design and build his plant in such a way as to achieve the purpose of the amendments. The payment of a bond is thus riot necessary. He will not be able to operate before he does what is required of him. That, I repeat, is what all of us want the whole system to achieve.
Moreover, the system will allow the enforcing authority to deal with existing processes by the gradual introduction of higher standards as necessary. Here again, no bond is required. The enforcing authority will require the higher standards to be achieved over a reasonable period of time—what the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution calls the "best environmental timetable". It is up to the operator to carry out whatever programme of works will enable him to meet these standards; if he does not, he will be in breach of his authorisation. We believe that there is not a good reason for this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, decides what to do with his amendment, I should say that I find that reply curious as it is in two parts. The first part claimed that it is satisfactory to have the attempt to deal with pollution before it
882
occurs. That is an important and valuable thrust of the Bill. We are not seeking to oppose that part of the Bill. However, as the Minister said in his reply, there are some cases where the process will already be in operation. It is in those cases where the pollution has already started and the process is already in operation that we need a performance bond in order to secure that the process is brought to an end. I do not think that was answered by the second part of the Minister's answer when he stated that the Government intended to secure that there was an agreed timetable for abatement or elimination of the pollution.
Of course such a timetable is valuable, and in earlier amendments we referred to such a timetable, in order that the process should cease within a given time. I notice that the Government did not accept those amendments. But a performance bond to provide a financial incentive for them to do it is surely a valuable addition. That is provided for in the Broadcasting Bill which is before your Lordships' House at present, and it would be a useful addition to the range of powers available to the Government and to the enforcing authorities as regards this Bill.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have a fairly lengthy brief on this subject but because the hour is late I have not quoted it all. I assume, so far as these amendments are concerned, that the local authorities have in mind—and this came from a local authority source—a situation arising when a development takes out an estate and money has to be deposited to make sure that the road is made up to the proper adopted standard. What happens if, in this case, somebody is applying to carry out a process in which some liquid is likely to be released—for example, if a building gets half built and something starts oozing out of the place and the company goes bust? It is a terrible job, surely, to try to get some compensation from some source to clear up the mess left behind.
I can think of other areas, like oil pollution. It would be much better if people put down a performance bond before they were allowed to put in tanker terminals. They are meant to establish the basis for initial clean-ups. We think the BATNEEC would be too gradual to allow them to be licensed. It would be a safer bet if the Government went a little deeper into this, to see whether there is a case for ensuring, in particular instances where perhaps some rather more serious pollution might occur if the process were not properly completed and not finished to a proper standard, that there is an area on which they can fall back. I can see problems looming up for local authorities, and perhaps even government departments holding the baby at the end of the day.
I should like to study what the Minister has said and perhaps return to the matter at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("available techniques not entailing excessive cost") and insert ("practicable environmental option").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 79 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 80.
There have already been quite a number of references to BATNEEC, the best available technology not entailing excessive cost. None of the references that have been made from the Government Front Bench have relieved our fears that BATNEEC is in fact a compromise formulation, nothing like as good a formulation as the original formulation of best practical environmental option which would actually require the cleanest process to be used by producers.
Our fears are not very significantly reduced by the draft guidance note which the Department of the Environment issued on 27th April 1990. I will not go into that in detail, noble Lords will be pleased to hear, but I must deal with the end of the environment guidance note which deals with the question of excessive costs because there appears to be a significant difference between what we mean by excessive cost and what the European Commission, in particular, is likely to mean by it. If we find ourselves out of key with what the European Commission is likely to find, then we shall place ourselves in a position of quite undesirable, unnecessary, expensive and damaging conflict.
Let us take, for example, Article 13 of the European Commission's air framework directive of 1984. The guidance note on BATNEEC defines excessive cost in relation in particular to the economic situation of undertakings belonging to the category in question. The European formulation is presented in the guidance note as related to the profitability of the firm, whereas the British formulation ignores the profitability of the firm and looks only at the cost benefit balance in terms of environmental protection.
If that is the case, it would be interesting to have the Minister's confirmation on it. We should like to know why the further definitions of BATNEEC are not included on the face of the Bill. As matters stand, BATNEEC is a compromise which does not do what the European Commission at least will require of us and what we should require of ourselves. That compromise will not be satisfactory in curbing pollution. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: I am also worried about BATNEEC. We now have enough experience to know that the long-terms effects of pollutants on people's health can be far worse than first thought. Two examples of that phenomenon are the terrible results in the 19th century of the exposure of women in match factories over a long period of time to the phosphorous used in their work and, more recently, the continual decreases in the permitted levels of exposure to radioactivity. When those levels were set in the 1950s and the 1960s, we were assured that they were realistic, but later experience has shown that they were not.
When we are dealing with processes and substances whose effects on health may not be known, we must err on the side of caution. It is worth nothing that good environmental practice is also good business. Strangely, that has nothing to do
884
with the law. In the long term, which is such a foreign way of thinking to so many of our industrial and investment strategists, an environmentally sound business is a sustainable business. BATNEEC sets an agenda that puts profit before people. There is nothing in it that would prevent a person from polluting if he can simply show that there is no economical way of not doing so. That is not acceptable and that is why I support the amendments.
Lord Reay: These amendments allow us to consider what is perhaps the central clause of Part I of the Bill and its fundamental concepts; namely, best practicable environmental option and best available techniques not entailing excessive costs.
As my noble friend Lord Hesketh said at Second Reading, much of the credit for the evolution of integrated pollution control must go to the sterling work that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution undertook in devising and elaborating the concept of the best practicable environmental option. It has allowed us through this Bill to take a lead internationally in industrial environmental control and for that I think Members throughout your Lordships' Committee would agree that we owe considerable debt to the work of the Royal Commission.
It may be helpful to this debate if I set out how the Part I system will work. When he comes to submit his application, the operator will have had to consider fully the range of environmental options available to him and to select the one that he considers to be the best. If evidence of such consideration is not provided, the enforcing authority will require the operator to furnish more information. In its turn, the enforcing authority will have determined which specific conditions to set to ensure that the best practicable environmental option is taken. Decisions about BPEO are therefore central to determining specific conditions.
However, the general condition to which Clause 7(4) relates does not refer to such fundamental crux decisions. It is concerned with second order matters that do not warrant being regulated by specific conditions. As such, the appropriate requirement is that already in the Bill, namely, that the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs shall be used to minimise release of prescribed substances and to render harmless to the environment all releases whether or not of prescribed substances.
We therefore believe that there is no need for the general duty on the operator to refer to BPEO. Nor do we consider the second amendment, Amendment No. 80, to be necessary, for the reason that the work is already in hand. I can assure the Committee that the Government are already doing precisely what would be required of them by this amendment. We have already made advice relating to the general meaning of BATNEEC available in draft and copies are in the Library. We have circulated copies to a number of interested bodies and will consider carefully any points that they put to us.
We are working too on specific guidance for individual processes and shall begin to issue such

885
advice very shortly for wide public consultation. It is our intention to produce detailed guidance in concert with our European Community partners where that is feasible on the appropriate level of control for new plant and on the timetables over which existing processes need to be brought up to such standards.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
12.30 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I am well aware that when one comes to formulations such as BATNEEC or BPEO one could land up with what in effect is a theological discussion. I certainly do not want to become involved in a discussion about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It may well be that in good hands BATNEEC under certain circumstances could result in effects comparable with those of other formulations.
To a limited extent I am reassured by the reference which the noble Lord made to the consultations with the European Community in his reply. In the light of those references and with the possibility that we may have to return to the matter when we have seen the further information that the noble Lord has promised us, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) When an authorisation is under consideration, the requirements of the Fourth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community shall be heeded, namely, that the priorities for the management of waste shall be—

(a) waste reduction by process or technology improvement;

(b) reutilisation of, or resource recovery from, or recycling of the waste;

(c) elimination by physical or chemical means;

(d) disposal to landfill.").

The noble Lord said: This is an amendment about principle in a sea of objectives and regulations. Maybe it will help with the problem of theology encountered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to know that this is the principle which basically underlies BATNEEC, BPM, BPEO and all the other acronyms with which it is difficult to deal. It is a principle that has been decided within the European Community and for that reason I think that it ties in very well in that direction.
This provision should be on the face of the Bill because it is the principle that underlies everything that goes into this clause. It is a list of order of merit of the methods of disposal of waste that exist. I should also point out that the end of the amendment should read "disposal to landfill" and not "disposal of landfill" as appears on the Marshalled List. If we could dispose of landfill, that would indeed be a miracle. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister replies, I was not aware of that particular formulation, but it makes extremely good sense to me as I read it. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing it forward.
Lord Addington: I too should like to add support from these Benches for the proposals as they are set out in the amendment. We should have on the face of the Bill at some point some form of declaration of intent and the ideology behind the Bill so that we do not become too bogged down in regulations and basic statements of what is economically advisable and administratively possible.
Lord Reay: I am not convinced that this amendment adds anything to the provisions of Clause 7. The fourth environmental action programme of the European Community is obviously extremely important. That is why the United Kingdom, like other member states, endorsed it as the basis for further progress on environmental protection.
I am not sure that it should have a place in Part I of the Bill. IPC is the first national integrated system of pollution control in Europe. It establishes a pollution control framework for well into the next century. The fourth action programme, however, ends in 1992. I am sure that my noble friend agrees that it would be wrong to require enforcing authorities in, say, the year 2005 to have regard to an environmental programme which had expired 13 years earlier.
Paragraphs (a) and (c) of the amendment equate to Clause 7(2)(a)(i) of the Bill. The action programme talks first of reduction and then, as a lower priority, of elimination of waste. The Bill mentions prevention first and, where that is not practicable, minimisation. The Bill attaches high priority to prevention, and the concept of minimisation is tougher than the action programmes on reduction.
Paragraphs (b) and (d) relate to Clause 7(7) of the Bill which concerns the best practicable environmental option. In the past there has been an impression that disposal to landfill is the easy waste option. Part II of the Bill will ensure that that method of disposal is now policed effectively. But that does not mean that waste arising from Part I should be encouraged to be sent for landfill. Surely we should be aiming to achieve whatever method of disposal or resource recovery is best for the environment as a whole—the best practicable environmental option. That is the key to Part I of the Bill.
Clause 7 also requires enforcing authorities to take account of United Kingdom obligations under EC and other international treaties. The Bill delivers the aspect of the fourth action programme referred to in the amendment and a little more. I hope that what I have said will have persuaded my noble friend that the clause provides what he wishes and that he will therefore not press his amendment.
Lord Layton: I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I am not altogether happy with either the amendment or the reply. Perhaps the Government will consider putting on the face of the Bill a

887
simplification of the various provisions on authorisation so that it is clear that a particular end is envisaged and that everyone is working towards that aim. In the hope that such clarification may be forthcoming, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 10, line 14, at end insert ("and, in relation to Scotland, to any regulations made under section 5(1A) above").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 82 has been tabled simply for clarification. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Fees and charges for authorisations]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 10, line 41, leave out ("the making of").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 84 is a simple drafting amendment. It clarifies the intention that the charging scheme can require a fee for an application even if it does not result in an authorisation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 10, line 44, after ("authorisations") insert:
("(bb) charges payable by such persons to local enforcing authorities for the purposes of enabling such authorities to disburse loans and grants from the proceeds to applicants for authorisations, where in the opinion of the relevant authority the applicant would otherwise be unable to fulfil the terms of any authorisation and pollution at an unacceptable level would result;").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands also in the names of my noble friend Lord McNair, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I suspect that I shall not receive much response from the Minister on the amendment because it involves cross-subsidisation. However, I believe that it will be effective in dealing with some of the pollution problems which will face local authorities and the HMIP.
The effect of the amendment would be to widen the powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe schemes of fees and charges for authorisations. It would empower him to include within a scheme provision for local authorities to levy an additional charge on applicants for authorisation. The proceeds of that charge could then be distributed to applicants for authorisations when, in the opinion of the local authority, the terms of an authorisation could not expect to be fulfilled without that financial assistance. It would in effect provide a mechanism whereby polluters as a group would be levied to ensure that individual polluters could meet the desired targets, thus achieving a balance between the necessary protection of the environment and the economic viability of producers. If we do not make such provision I can foresee that good schemes which firms may not be able to finance will fall to the ground.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's intentions with regard not so much to the substance contained in the proposals, but to the principles underlying them. Those principles are imporant not just to the control of pollution in any given locality and the means by which it is to be financed but to the overriding issue of the role that the UK is to play as an advanced industrial economy in protecting and enhancing the environment on a world scale.
First, it is wrong in principle for the holders of the technology best suited to the protection of the environment so to exploit their property rights as to prevent the widest possible diffusion of that technology. Secondly, it is inequitable for inherited comparative advantage to be exploited by those producers at the most advanced stage of development in a way that will restrict the development opportunities open to others.
At local level the obvious sense of the amendment can readily be seen. It would allow charges to be levied on all polluters effectively to minimise the economic disruption that could flow from the shift to less pollution in general. For many localities and regions, that would be important if the underlying purpose of pollution control were not to be defeated by short-term but understandable self-interest. That would be effected in practice by means of the cross-subsidisation of one producer by another to meet desired pollution targets without forcing producers out of business due to the cost of so doing.
Cross-subsidisation is not normally encouraged. It encourages inefficiency at the level of the firm and an inappropriate distribution of resources at the level of the economy. However, the economics of pollution control are not those which would normally apply. That is so because of the different response times technologically determined for different industries in meeting improved standards and because of the differing values of pollution as external costs in proportion to the overall production costs of different industries.
As a result and as an economy moves—from a market which does not incorporate, or only partly incorporates, the external costs of pollution and its counterpart (the internal costs to the firm of its abatement) into the production costs of firms to a market which does, or more fully incorporates them—it is demonstrably possible that firms and industries will in the short term cease to be profitable which would, in the long term, once the market completed the adjustment, have been profitable. It follows that because of where we start from, and because of the path that the market would, if unaided, dictate, the economy might not reach the point at which we seek to arrive. The amendment seeks to provide the means whereby that might be avoided by generating revenues which can be used as subsidies to ensure that industries and the economy' in general can be put on a path that will enable them to reach that point which we wish.
How those means should be utilised is something which would vary from area to area and from industry to industry. It would depend on the distribution of industries within different areas and the division of a process of production between

889
different firms. That practical complexity makes it desirable that it should be targeted and administered by local authorities because they are best placed to do so. However, its application at the level of industries also makes it desirable that that should be done in full consultation with, and co-ordinated by, the Secretary of State. It is on that basis that the Secretary of State should consider giving the amendment practical effect.
I am sorry if I have bored the Committee. On the last occasion I tried to be brief while wishing to put the matter at greater length. I do not see how local authorities, which will be greatly involved, can help or give initiatives to firms which wish to set up but have problems with pollution control and perhaps no resources. It may be that the authority would desperately like to see such a firm in its area. There must be a way in which authorities can raise costs from one side in order to give aid on another.
The trouble is that the Government do not trust local government. That is sad and must be put right. However, we know from what is now happening that the opportunities for local authorities to do things for themselves are decreasing. When I led a county council in 1981–82 I was able to encourage employment and to bring back into life land that was lying idle as a result of the closure of industries. I should not be able to do so today. Unless there is a scheme such as that proposed I do not see how we can deal with those highly desirable firms that have a project which should be encouraged. They may not have the financial resources unless provision can be made for money received from one source to be distributed to another.
I know that probably that is anathema to present government thinking and to the thinking of the Secretary of State. However, I seriously suggest to the Minister that the provision should be considered. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Reay: I regret that we cannot accept Amendment No. 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. He is asking the profitable sectors of industry—but only those in Part B of the schedule, not the really large companies—to fund, either by grants or loans, pollution abatement improvements by others. In other words, profitable company A is required to provide capital for company B's improvement programme. Why should this system only relate to those processes in Part B to be controlled by local authorities for air pollution purposes? If it were to be introduced, surely it should bite first on the potentially larger processes prescribed for integrated pollution control.
Perhaps the problem with this amendment stems from a fundamental misapprehension. It says that the system is designed to stop otherwise unacceptable levels of pollution. But the system is already designed to stop that. The use of BATNEEC, the pollution load on the environment, is by definition acceptable since what determines excessiveness of cost will in part relate to the environmental benefits to accrue. If the cost of a
890
technique is not excessive, by definition there can be no unacceptable pollution load. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I did not anticipate a very favourable response. However, the point has been aired to which I received a reply. I still believe that there is a problem. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 10, line 45 leave out ("consideration") and insert ("respect").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 88 and 89. This is a series of simple amendments. Amendment No. 87 is designed to make clear that the annual fee relates to the subsistence of an authorisation and not, as might have been supposed by the word "consideration", the authority's enforcement of it.
Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 clarify the position in relation to relevant expenditure by the National Rivers Authority and answer legitimate anxieties of that authority. The first is a technical amendment specifying that the NRA's relevant functions are in respect of authorisations. The second ensures that the NRA can be reimbursed for all expenditure attributable to the consideration of the applications for the authorisation as well as the subsequent work if it is granted and used. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I express my gratitude to the Minister for so fully and comprehensively meeting an important point which I raised at Second Reading. It is perhaps the most important point of outstanding anxiety about the operation of IPC jointly by the NRA and HMIP.
At Second Reading I drew attention to the fact that as a result of Clause 28 the NRA will be able to accept the conditions on all discharges to water. I pointed out that it was absolutely crucial that the NRA should not be inhibited from carrying out such monitoring and enforcement proceedings as it thinks is necessary.
I said that I had been encouraged by the assurances given by Ministers in correspondence that the NRA would be able to carry out such monitoring as it thinks necessary and would retain the right to intiate enforcement proceedings unilaterally. The doubt which remained was as to whether the finance would be available, as a result of this Bill, to enable the NRA to carry out those functions. I am satisfied that the government amendments meet those anxieties and that the charging scheme will enable the NRA to carry out that important part of its responsibilities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:
Page 1, line 26, after ("Part") insert ("in relation to authorisations").
Page 11, line 27, leave out from ("in") to end of line 28 and insert ("exercising the Authority's functions in relation to

891
authorisations for processs which may involve the release of any substance into water.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("he") and insert ("it").
The noble Earl said: In subsection (8) of this clause, the enforcing authority issues the notice. I therefore suggest to the Committee that the word "it" is substituted for the word "he". I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I congratulate my noble friend on tabling Amendment No. 90. It results from his careful scrutiny of the Bill and he has identified an infelicitous reference which the Government are happy to correct.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 11, line 40, at end insert ("or in relation to consultation carried out under regulations made under section 5(2) above").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 91, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 and 93.
Amendment No. 91 relates to the charging scheme for authorisations. Its purpose is to include expenditure incurred in relation to consultation within the definition of "relevant expenditure". Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 are minor drafting amendments to subsection (11) of Clause 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 92 and 93:
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("the appropriate") and insert ("a").
Page 11, line 43, leave out ("the") and insert ("their").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Variation of authorisations by enforcing authority]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 94 and 95:
Page 12, line 10, after ("above") insert ("and, in cases to which they apply, the requirements of Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act,").
Page 12, line 38, leave out from ("opinion") to end of line 40.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Variation of conditions etc.: applications by holders of authorisations]:
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 13, line 21, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("substantial").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 96 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97, 100 and 104. The whole purpose of the Bill is to protect the environment. During the course of normal industrial operations, changes are often made to the
892
way in which a process is carried out. Variation notices are surely not appropriate in circumstance where the operational changes are relatively minor and will not lead to a changed impact of that process on the environment.
The phrase "relevant change" would seem to introduce an unnecessary complication to an already complicated Bill and would give an operator a great deal of uncertainty regarding what constitutes a relevant change. "Substantial change", on the other hand, is defined in Clause 10(7) and would seem to fit the circumstances better where a variation notice would be required. Why make variations because of changes when the ends have stayed the same? There should be no need to inform the authority if there has not been a substantial change, as there would be no need to change the authorisation.
If it is the end product which is of concern, why set up a complex mechanism to hinder the continuation of what is, at the end of the day, the same thing and all that is of concern? If industry was expected to ask for authorisation for every system change it was to make in a process, the whole system would become unworkable.
What constitutes a relevant change? There could be considerable delay in obtaining variations at a time when industry is trying to react swiftly to changing circumstances. Would that not be damaging to the competitiveness of certain industries? An added work burden would be placed on the enforcing authority by what could well be unwarranted interference with a company's normal operations. I consider that that would be unjustifiable and I therefore beg to move the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I understand the concerns which the noble Lord has expressed in introducing these four linked amendments. May I first categorically reassure him that it is no part of our purpose to place unnecessary bureaucracy or unwarranted obstacles in the way of industry. I fully appreciate that the system we are proposing in Part I must allow industry the greatest liberty consistent with adequate environmental control to get on with the task of producing the goods on which they—and all of us—depend. And I am very alive to the need to ensure that the system of variations which Clause 11 proposes should reflect the operational requirements of industry as well as those of the enforcing authority. The system we propose must, it is clear, be a sensible and workable one.
I must equally make clear that where the system calls for it we have not hesitated to ensure that proper controls are in place. It is every bit as important that the Part I regime should ensure that the conditions in an authorisation are updated in line with changes to the process. To ensure this, the enforcing authority must be kept fully up to date with those changes. Having said that, however, I believe I may be able to reassure the noble Lord about his concerns.
The amendments he proposes suggest, first, that industries should be required to notify to the enforcing authorities not relevant changes but only substantial changes. I resist that for a reason which I hope is clear when one considers the definition of

893
relevant change in subsection (9)—in essence, any change in the process which is capable of altering the releases from it. I remind the Committee that substantial changes are in practical terms simply those which are so significant that they merit the same procedure of public advertisement and consultation as an initial application for authorisation.
I hope that my noble friend will not disagree that the enforcing authority must be made aware of any change to the process which might affect releases. That seems self evident as a basic principle. The authority needs to know not only of changes to the releases themselves but also, for instance, of alterations to the process which might, possibly unknown to the operator, offer the potential for reducing releases. For example, an operator might want to make some seemingly minor reconstruction to the process hardware which would allow the enforcing authority to suggest the introduction of additional abatement equipment at very little extra cost. I emphasise that in the light of this it would be dangerous indeed to limit the requirement to notify the enforcing authorities to cases of significant changes only.
I must stress here two very important amendments which we have made to the variation procedures. First, an operator is no longer obliged under Clause 11 to notify the enforcing authority of all relevant changes. Instead, the authorisation itself can spell out as a condition what categories of change he must notify, or perhaps that he must notify of all changes except those of a specified category. There is no reason why this route should not allow the operator all the freedom he requires to make rapid changes of, for example, raw materials or throughputs, without further recourse to the enforcing authority.
The second change we have proposed, by way of Government Amendment No. 101 which we have already debated, is a major simplification of the notification procedure to cover cases where the operator knows from the beginning that what he requires is a change to one of his existing conditions. These important simplifications will go a very long way to easing the burden of reporting changes to enforcing authorities. I hope that added to the importance of the fundamental principle of reporting all relevant changes, except where it is clear that that is unnecessary, my noble friend will feel that he does not need to press his amendments.
Lord Layton: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. I think he has answered my questions fully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page [4, line 17, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").
Page 14, leave out line 18.
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments and beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 101 to 103:
Page 14, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert—
("(5A) A person carrying on a process under an authorisation who wishes to make a relevant change in the process may, where it appears to him that the change will require the variation of the conditions of the authorisation, apply to the enforcing authority in the prescribed form for the variation of the conditions of the authorisation specified in the application.
(5B) A person who makes an application for the variation of the conditions of an authorisation")
Page 14, line 28, after ("may") insert (", having fulfilled the requirements of Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act in cases to which they apply, as it thinks fit either")
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("as it thinks fit") and insert ("or, in the case of an application under subsection (5A) above, treat the application as a request for a determination under subsection (2) above;")
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Revocation of authorisation]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 14, line 10, at end insert—
("(6) Where a revocation is served by the enforcing authority by virtue of subsection (1) above, the authority shall he liable to pay compensation to the recipient of the notice unless this revocation relates to a breach of the conditions of authorisation as specified in section 7 above.
(7) Provision may be made by regulations as to the manner determining the amount of any compensation payable in pursuance of this section including the factors to be taken into account in determining that amount.").
The noble Lord said: The Bill as drafted makes no provision for compensating companies whose authorisations have been revoked, perhaps as a result of a change in government policy or perhaps as a result of a previously unforeseen need to protect persons likely to be affected by the company's operations.
It is possible that a company will have invested a large sum of money to meet the conditions of an authorisation, because in some areas we are referring to new technology the investment for which is considerable.
An unforeseen change in circumstances may mean that the best available techniques which had been used are still not sufficient to meet new standards that become necessary and that further improvements are required to meet the new standards set down by an authority. I submit that in such situations it is reasonable for the company to expect to receive some compensation since it will have invested a large amount of resource but may, through no fault of its own, be deprived from profiting from such an investment.
The principle that companies are entitled to compensation in these circumstances has been previously adopted in relation to a number of areas of legislation, notably in food safety and consumer protection. Indeed, it has been adopted in relation to the revocation of consents issued by the old water

895
authorities. The amendment that I am moving is taken from Section 38 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
It is only reasonable that there should be in the Bill some provision, under certain circumstances, for companies to look to this compensation area; otherwise it will be very unfair, as I have said, particularly if the change that is necessary is through no fault of one's own. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
Lord Hesketh: My noble friend's amendment makes the point that if a revocation notice is served unreasonably, then the authority which served it should be liable to pay compensation. I recognise that the service of a revocation notice will be a matter of the utmost importance to the operator of a prescribed process, but I do believe that the Bill as it stands will ensure that processes will not be closed down on the whim of an enforcing authority.
My noble friend suggests compensation is the answer. Clearly, the financial interests of the operator would be adversely affected if he was required to close the process without good reason, even if he was allowed to recommence operations at a later date. I believe that, because the service of a revocation notice is of such major significance to the operator, we should give him every opportunity to present his side of the case before the process is stopped. We have provided, therefore, in Clause 15 that the operator may appeal against the service of the notice and that the notice will not take effect pending the final determination or withdrawal of the appeal. That, in my view, is the best solution to the problem.
I have to point out too to my noble friend that revocation notices may be served under Clause 8(8) as well as Clause 12. One by-product of his amendment would be to require, in cases of revocation, compensation to be paid to an operator by the enforcing authority when the operator had failed to pay his annual charge to the enforcing authority. That does seem a strange redistribution of wealth to the Government. I am sure that is not the intention of my noble friend. Given my explanation about the interaction between this clause and Clauses 8 and 15 of the Bill I request my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. I shall have something to say about Clauses 15 and 17 in a few moments. The point that he made about Clause 8 I had not recognised. I still feel that there is good reason for compensation provisions to be made. However, in view of what the Minister has said I wish to have a careful look at the matter to see how exactly I can reconcile his view to my own. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Prohibition notices]:
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 15, line 34, leave out ("an imminent") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not in the Chamber I shall move this amendment which stands in his name, mine and that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. As drafted, Clause 14 enables the enforcing authority to serve a prohibition notice on a person carrying on a prescribed process where it is of the opinion that its continuation, or continuation in a particular manner, involves an imminent risk of serious pollution of the environment. As originally drafted, Clause 14 did not include the word "imminent". The word was inserted by a government amendment following an undertaking given by the Minister during Committee stage in another place.
It was thought that the range of circumstances under which prohibition notices could be served was too great. I believe that the insertion of the word "imminent" now makes it too restrictive. It is true that Part I of the Bill deals with long-term risks and that prohibition notices would not be appropriate in those situations. But I understand that the National Rivers Authority is not convinced that all risks of serious pollution are either long-term or "imminent".
The purpose of this amendment is to enable the enforcing authority to serve a prohibition notice where it is of the opinion that there is a risk of serious pollution but that that risk may not necessarily be imminent. If the serving of a prohibition notice specifying the risk involved and the steps to be taken to remove it are limited to circumstances where that risk is imminent, there would not always be time for the person carrying on the process to take the steps which are necessary to prevent serious pollution.
Even if a prohibition notice specified that one of the steps that must be taken to remove an imminent risk of serious pollution should include an immediate cessation of the particular process, or the relevant aspect of it, this would not necessarily mean that serious pollution would thereby be prevented. Certain activities might have been causing pollution to build up over a period of time until the point at which the risk had become imminent. It could then be too late to prevent the polluting effect on the environment, even by an immediate cessation.
In the case of the water environment, the National Rivers Authority has powers under Section 115 of the Water Act 1989 to take remedial action once pollution has entered any receiving waters. However, the authority is, I understand, concerned—and in my view rightly concerned—that pollution should, wherever possible, be dealt with before the event, by preventive action on site by the persons carrying on the process concerned.
I hope therefore that the Government will accept the amendment, or, if not, that they will give further thought to the word "imminent" and see whether some form of words can be found which will not be excessively wide but which will enable serious pollution to be checked in good time. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I shall be extremely brief because the matter has been comprehensively covered by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. This is an extremely important point. I believe that, in seeking to ensure that the Bill did not go too wide, the Government have now created a situation where we can actually have serious pollution that should be prevented. If my noble friend cannot give an immediately favourable answer tonight I trust that he will not close his mind to these issues. I hope that he will take the matter away and see whether he can come back with a solution which would safeguard the environment, as I am sure all Members of the Committee would wish, and not leave us in a situation where we could face quite serious pollution that ought to be prevented.
Lord Reay: The effect of the amendment would be to delete an amendment which the Government brought forward on Report in another place. At Committee stage in another place the point was fairly made that, as many industrial processes involve a serious risk of pollution, the drafting of Clause 14 without any reference to time or urgency was extremely wide and imprecise—hence the introduction of the word "imminent". I think I can reassure the noble Lord that the purpose of his amendment is already provided for by Clause 13, which allows the enforcing authority to serve an enforcement notice when it considers that the condition of an authorisation is likely to be breached and so, by implication, run the risk of causing pollution of the environment.
Prohibition notices are slightly different. They are not designed primarily to be served when an operator is breaching or is likely to breach the conditions of an authorisation. They are designed to cover circumstances in which a process is being operated in a perfectly reasonable manner and within the conditions of the authorisation but where some event external to the process requires quick and decisive action. For example, an accident at one process could release substances which could react with those normally allowed to be released by a nearby process, so causing serious pollution. In those circumstances it would be right to close down temporarily the second process even though it was operating within its authorisation.
Those are the circumstances which prohibition notices are designed to meet. I think that the present wording of the clause meets that aim. I should like to consider the words of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The two types of notices provided for in Clauses 13 and 14 furnish enforcing notices with a comprehensive and we think precautionary system of enforcement. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply I am especially grateful for the fact that he said he would consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I, too, will study carefully in Hansard what has been said. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Appeals as respects authorisations and against variation, enforcement and prohibition notices]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 16, line 24, after ("11") insert ("above").
The noble Earl said: The proposal in this amendment is a fairly standard practice which is used throughout legislation in general. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My noble friend has succeeded in identifying another drafting error in the Bill which, once again, the Government are happy to correct.
Noble Lords: Shame!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 17, line 23, leave out from ("above") to end of line 25 and insert:

("(a) in the case of a variation notice or an enforcement notice the appeal shall have the effect of suspending the operation of the notice until the appeal is finally disposed of or, if the appeal is withdrawn, until the withdrawal of the appeal;

(b) in the case of a prohibition notice the bringing of the appeal shall have the like effect if, but only if, on the application of the appellant the Secretary of State so directs and then only from the giving of the direction.").

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who regrettably cannot be present in the Chamber at this late hour. If Members of the Committee will look at subsection (9), which is the subject of the amendment, I think they will agree that it is fairly draconian. I say that because it says:
"Where an appeal is brought under subsection (2) above against a notice, the bringing of the appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the operation of the notice".
As a result of that process, it may well be that the company is put out of business while waiting for an appeal to be heard, or waiting for the judgment of that appeal to be delivered. Of course, purely and simply by placing a notice on the company the inspectorate may be guilty of closing it down. The kind of example which springs immediately to my mind is one concerning the storage of chemicals in a particular way. It may be that the inspectorate wants this done in a certain way but the company maintains, through its technical expertise, that the existing method is perfectly right and proper. Nevertheless, a notice may be placed upon the company which means that it has to cease trading while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The appeal procedure is provided for by Clause 15(2).
There is a precedent for this amendment if one looks, for example, at Section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It provides that, while an appeal is taking place, the notice takes effect after the appeal judgment has been given. In other words, the prohibition notice does not apply immediately, unless the tribunal specifically demands that it should do so.
It is unfair and one might even describe it as somewhat penal that a suspension is required while a variation order is in the process of being

899
undertaken. If it is suggested that the appeal procedure may be used to delay the implementation of a notice—whether or not it is a prohibition notice—I concede that that may in fact happen. But in other areas where this kind of legislation has been used, that incidence is very small indeed. Therefore, we must concern ourselves with such matters as the speed with which an appeal can be heard and the net outcome. If the net outcome of the appeal is in favour of the company, it will have been injuriously affected by the procedure.
Amendment No. 107 is designed to bring some element of reasonableness to the interests of enforcement and of fairness and the continuation of business. I beg to move.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Reay: My noble friend seeks to put certain notices into abeyance pending appeal, with special provision for prohibition notices in recognition of the serious and imminent danger of pollution that they are designed to prevent.
It may be helpful if I set out for the Committee how the proposed appeal system would work. New processes will not be able to begin operation until duly authorised by the enforcing authority. If the operator is unhappy with the conditions that have been set, he can appeal. In such a case he may decide to start up in compliance with the conditions and hope that they will later be amended on appeal; alternatively, he can wait for the appeal decision before beginning operation.
All notices (except those for revocation) will take effect immediately, whether or not the operator lodges an appeal against them. In most cases there will be time for the appeal to be considered before substantive construction work has to be undertaken to implement any major changes required by a notice since an enforcement or variation notice will not be valid unless sensible timescales allowing proper system design and construction work have been allowed.
My noble friend will appreciate that to put the notice into abeyance pending appeal would be to encourage unscrupulous operators to appeal automatically against every decision by the enforcing authority merely to delay the effect of a notice and so delay the cost of implementing environmental improvements. It is particularly in order to deal with those people that we need a robust system to ensure compliance. It would also risk clogging up the appeal system with potentially large numbers of groundless cases and would unnecessarily divert valuable technical resources away from a valid determination of what are the best available techniques, not entailing excessive costs in any case, or the best practicable environental option. I trust that the Committee is agreed that we must take the fastest action practicable to ensure that environmental improvements are made commensurate with a fair opportunity to challenge enforcing authority decisions.
As for the second part of the proposal, I am extremely concerned by the notion of having to ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to
900
confirm each prohibition notice before it takes effect. In such cases speed will be of the essence. If the enforcing authority believes that there is an imminent risk of serious pollution of the environment, it should be able to act immediately and not need to have its opinion endorsed. I trust that my noble friend will therefore not seek to pursue this amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I can promise the Committee that I shall not pursue the amendment this morning, but perhaps I may make one or two comments. Of course the Committee will agree with my noble friend that the speed at which enforcement can be executed is important. Nevertheless, a balance must be drawn. I cannot accept what the Minister said about unscrupulous operators. I dealt with that point in my opening remarks.
My noble friend described the provision contained in Clause 15 as needing to be robust in order to deter unscrupulous operators. I should like to know at a later stage how many unscrupulous operators it is estimated that that provision is likely to catch. I believe that it will not be so very many. As for clogging up the system and diverting resources, that is not a pertinent argument. The Bill should be so written as to provide an even-handed approach towards the enforcement authority, the appeal tribunal and the operators.
In his earlier remarks, the Minister dealt with the new processes being subject to appeal. I find that quite reasonable in that operations will not start until the process has been approved. If the process is not approved, it goes to appeal. Even so, the process has not yet started, so there is not such a potential loss. It is really on the question of variation and revocation that the greater damage may be effected.
I am inclined to accept at first hearing what my noble friend had to say about paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 107. I remain less sanguine about his answer to the first part. I shall pursue the matter at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appointment of chief inspector and other inspectors]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("authority") and insert ("Association of District Councils, or the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities").
The noble Earl said: Local authorities can choose qualified persons to be inspectors. I am trying in the amendment to ensure that there is not a variety of different names for the same officer across the country. That is why I suggest that through their association or convention, as the case may be, they choose a single name for officers. Then no matter where it is, the name is standard throughout the country. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am afraid that on this occasion it is third time unlucky for my noble friend the Earl of Balfour. The local authority functions conferred by Part I of the Bill fall to individual local authorities. It is therefore for them rather than for the Association of District Councils or the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to decide what are the appropriate qualifications for any inspectors to whom they may choose to delegate powers.
The Earl of Balfour: Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Power to deal with cause of imminent danger of serious harm]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Public registers of information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 21, line 39, at end insert:
("(bb) The levels of pollution anticipated in each year as a result of the carrying on of the process authorised (and for this purpose the person carrying on the process shall notify the authority annually as to the estimated levels;").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 111, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 118, 119, and 120. All these amendments refer to a major issue in the Bill. Much as the Government may sometimes wish it to go away, it simply will not do so. That is the issue of the availability of environmental information. At the early stages in the progress of the Bill through another place, the Government played a straight bat. They claimed that the provisions of the Bill as originally drafted were adequate.
Then there was a welcome change in many ways. The Government appeared to be saying that they were backing the proposals made for an EC directive on access to environmental information through the form of public registers. However, the problems with this apparent conversion of the Government remain serious. The provisions for access to environmental information exclude the confidentiality of proceedings of public authorities, internal communications or unfinished documents. They exclude information relating to international relations, national defence, public security or personal data. They exclude matters which are or have been sub judice, which are under inquiry or are the subject of preliminary investigation proceedings. They exclude commercial confidentiality. We shall come to the definition of commercial confidentiality in dealing with a later part of the Bill. They exclude information voluntarily supplied by companies or other third parties. They exclude information which if disclosed could lead to damage to that part of the
902
environment to which it relates. They exclude a request which is manifestly unreasonable or formulated in too general a manner.
Even though the authorities would have to give reasons for a refusal of that kind and even though there would always be the possibility of judicial review, nevertheless in our view that does not in effect constitute adherence to the European Commission directive. It would not satisfy the terms of any directive designed to secure adherence to the principle of access to environmental information. This is an extremely important matter and it is one which even at this hour of night cannot be left on one side. If the Government are to maintain any credibility in this matter, they must give some indication that the list of exemptions which is proposed is not firm and that they are prepared to discuss the terms of the exemptions. I should be happy to take any opportunity that I am offered between now and Report to discuss the terms and to see whether we can make some progress in improving freedom of access to environmental information. I hope that these amendments will provide us with the opportunity to do that and that we can enter some kind of meaningful dialogue with the Government on this. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The report of the Select Committee was most influential in helping us formulate the system of registers of information that is established in this clause. The committee looked particularly closely at registers and recommended their use for the reason that registers can assist the public by making information more accessible. Registers of information present information in an easy to use form and avoid the problem of the public having to find out what information is available before they can exercise their right to look at it.
The committee also recommended that raw monitoring data about releases to the environment should also be available; we have provided for this. But the committee rightly remarked that registers should not become too cluttered. It recommended that the bulkiest material should be accessible beyond the register. We agree with this recommendation too and have therefore provided that that type of information will be accessible on request rather than on the first tier of the register. But, to ensure that everyone knows that the information is available, the register will contain an indication that such information is available on request. In this way we have created a system that is both easy to use and comprehensive.
We listened hard in formulating Clauses 20 to 22. I have listened too, to the arguments presented by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, today, but I do not think that the proposed amendments lead to the improvements that he believes they do. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that registers should include the levels of pollution anticipated in each year as a result of the carrying on of the process. In making an application to carry on a process the operator will be obliged to include an assessment of the likely effect on the environment of releases from the process. That application will form part of the register. And as part of the authorisation, the

903
enforcing authority will be able to require the operator to furnish details of actual releases (not estimates) at regular intervals. That information will also be placed on the register. That will ensure that the public has up-to-date information about actual releases. I do not see the additional need for estimates.
The noble Lord also mentioned reports of pollution incidents. These could be placed on the register under paragraph (i) of subsection (1). That same heading will also ensure that the results of HMIP's own monitoring of processes may be placed on the register. We wish to make as much information as possible available to the public, as I hope the debate we are having will show. But commercial confidentiality and national security are two necessary limits which were recognised by nearly all respondents to the public consultation on access to information which was issued last year; by the European Commission in formulating an EC Directive on access to information and, above all, by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, which considered an early draft of that directive.
In keeping with our wish to make as much information available as possible we have provided in Clause 20(4) that a statement should be included on the register indicating the existence of commercially confidential information. However, we decided against such a provision in the case of national security information. The acknowledgement of the existence of commercially confidential information does not of itself divulge any trade secret. I accept that a statement noting the existence of commercial confidentiality may cause some interest from industrial competitors, but it will not of itself breach that confidentiality.
The same cannot be said about national security information. Even the simplest information, such as the location of a process, could run the risk of breaching the security that this clause is designed to protect. Amendment No. 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could allow the publication of much more information than that. I hope that, on reflection, he will consider it right not to pursue this amendment.
We published some guidelines during Committee stage in the other place which made it clear that exemptions from the register would not be given lightly. Only information which needs to be restricted will not be available to the public. Representations about the lack of information may be made at any time to enforcing authorities or, indeed, the Secretary of State. We do not need a specific provision such as Amendment No. 119 to ensure that. Such representations will no doubt be taken into account every time the exemption of the information from the register comes up for review. So I do not see the need to initiate a formal right of appeal to the Secretary of State, particularly as he may well have taken the decision as to whether or not the information should be included or excluded from the register. Furthermore, applications for authorisations should only go out to public consultation when questions of commercial confidentiality have been settled. An open-ended right of appeal about such decisions could therefore
904
lead to delay and confusion during the application process.
Amendment No. 112 brings amendment to subsection (1)(g). I know that there is some disquiet that the wording of this subsection could be taken to include information provided voluntarily by industry to the enforcing authorities. Therefore let me say at once that that is not the intention of the wording of this subsection. Subsection (1) refers to prescribed particulars of the various headings set out below. Let me assure noble Lords that those particulars will not include voluntary information. The need to exclude voluntary information was recognised in the recently agreed EC directive on access to information. Public authorities and industry need to maintain a good working relationship. As the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House also recognised, any impediment to the flow of voluntary information on a non-statutory basis to the enforcing authorities could have adverse environmental effects. The noble Lords who sat on that and I are of one mind on this. We believe that the Bill as drafted achieves this goal and I hope precludes the need for these amendments to be taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sufficiently satisfied by the comments of the Minister that the wording is defective and that, for example, the use of the word "estimated" is undesirable to be able to say straight away that I shall not press these amendments to a division at this stage.
However, the Minister has not convinced me that the exemptions which I quoted to freedom of information, to the information which is to be provided on the public registers, are either in the public interest or in accordance with the report of the Select Committee on European communities. I am not convinced, either, that this is in conformity with the form which the European Commission directive is likely to take in the end.
Therefore, there are matters to which we may have to return at a later stage; but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 22, line 11, after ("inspector") insert ("or river purification authority").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. I 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 116 and 117.
These amendments are consequential to the changes made in Committee in the other place for the application of Part I of the Bill to Scotland. As a result of those changes, we shall have an interlocking system of pollution control in Scotland involving both the chief inspector and the river purification authorities. It is therefore right that the RPAs be placed on the same footing as the chief inspector when it comes to the keeping of registers, and that we provide for full exchange of information between the chief inspector and the RPAs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 115 to 117:
Page 22, line 13, after ("inspector") insert ("or river purification authority").
Page 22, line 14, after ("inspector") insert ("or river purification authority").
Page 22, line 16, at end insert:
("(2A) In Scotland, the register maintained by—

(a) the chief inspector shall also contain prescribed particulars of such information contained in any register maintained by a river purification authority as relates to the carrying on in the area of the authority of prescribed processes in relation to which the authority has functions under this Part, and each authority shall furnish the chief inspector with the particulars which are necessary to enable him to discharge his duty under this section;

(b) each river purification authority shall also contain prescribed particulars of such information contained in any register maintained by the chief inspector as relates to the carrying on in the area of the authority of prescribed processes in relation to which the chief inspector has functions under this Part, and the chief inspector shall furnish each authority with the particulars which are necessary to enable them to discharge their duty under this section.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Exclusion from registers of information affecting national security]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 23, line 42, at end insert:
("(2A) A determination under subsection (2) above must be made within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date of the application and if the enforcing authority fails to make a determination within that period it shall be treated as having determined that the information is commercially confidential.").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled two amendments to this clause. Under Schedule 1 to the Bill we have provided that applications for authorisations should be determined by the enforcing authority within four months. That timescale includes a public consultation exercise which can only take place once questions of commercial confidentiality have been resolved. Clearly, therefore, considerations of commercial confidentiality will need to be resolved quickly, but not hastily.
Amendment No. 121 provides that questions of commercial confidentiality should be resolved by the enforcing authorities within 14 days, which is a reasonable period, given the overall timetable for the determination of applications. However, if in practice that proves to be too short, or even too long, Amendment No. 126 enables that timescale to be contracted or extended. This is another example of the detail that we are putting into the Bill on these important provisions. I hope that they will be welcomed by the Committee.
Perhaps I should seek the indulgence of the Committee and reply now to the amendment of
906
the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The Government introduced Clause 22 at Report stage in the other place because we wanted to set down as much detail as possible on the face of the Bill on this important subject. I hope that the informed and interesting debate that we have had today has confirmed the rectitude of that decision.
I agree with the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It would not make sense to insist that appeals about commercially confidential information should be held in public. However, subsection (5) of Clause 15 already allows the person appointed to examine the appeal to decide that the hearing should be held in private. The noble Lord has suggested that the appointed person should not have that discretion, and that all such appeals should be held in private. The inspectors hearing those appeals will be responsible and experienced people. The work of an appeal inspector carries great responsibility. I do not consider that they need to be nursed through the decision as to whether or not commercially confidential information should be examined in public. If an appeal covers both commercially confidential and non-confidential information, then it may be appropriate to allow part of the hearing to be in private and part of it in public. Clause 15(5) allows for that. I think the Bill is right as it stands on this point.
I have to say too that I am not attracted by Amendment No. 127 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The wording in the Bill seeks to take an overall view of commercial confidentiality. Above all, it requires a degree of reasonableness to be involved. The noble Lord's amendment reduced commercial confidentiality to a straight profit and loss account. That would have an effect which I am sure he did not intend. If, for example, the enforcing authority wished to place some information on the register about releases to the environment which showed that the process concerned did not take its environmental responsibilities seriously, the current wording of the Bill would not prevent the authority from making that information public.
However, the wording proposed in the amendment would allow the operator of such a process to claim that once that information was in the public domain, a significant number of people would no longer buy his product, so losing him money. That would extend the meaning of commercial confidentiality in a quite unwarranted way. I am sure that the noble Lord agrees that, far from encouraging the restriction of information about poor operating standards, we should make it available so that the public make informed judgments about the environmental records of operators of processes coming within this part of the Bill.
We introduced subsection (7) into the Bill in response to an amendment tabled by the Opposition during Committee stage in the other place. That amendment suggested that commercial confidentiality be reviewed every 18 months. That timescale was to short, even for the fast pace at which technology moves. After taking soundings from environmental groups and industry we concluded that four years was about right. As the

907
onus is on the operator to apply for a renewal of commercial confidentiality, I am not persuaded that we should be able to tinker with the timescale, which Amendment No. 125 would allow us to do, without any scrutiny by the persons affected by a direction. I think that we need to frame this clause in such a way that industry can plan ahead and knows when it must apply to protect that information which it regards as commercially confidential. Amendment No. 122 tabled by the noble Lord is, we believe, inconsistent with subsection (7) and indeed his own Amendment No. 125. I think that it is right to place the onus on renewing applications for confidentiality on the operators of processes and that we have the right timescale in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to subsection (6). I know that this clause has been causing some concern to industry. I believe that those fears are unnecessary. Subsection (6) meets a proposal which was made in the consultation paper on public access to information which we issued last year. The paper suggested that in exceptional circumstances it would be in the national interest for information to be included on the register, even though its inclusion might prejudice some private interest.
In the other place, my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and the Countryside explained that this subsection was designed to enable the Government to make information available should a major accident, such as Chernobyl, occur. Information which would be commercially confidential in everyday circumstances might well then need to be released in the public interest. Unnecessary secrecy could, in those circumstances give rise to all sorts of unnecessary fears and alarms and we should all wish to look very carefully at what needed to be done to alleviate the concern of people in such circumstances.
I hope that subsection (6) is a power which seldom, if ever, needs to be used. Nevertheless it is a necessary reserve power. If we do not retain it, I think that we shall be sending the wrong sort of message to the British public. We should be saying that the commercial interest is more important than the public interest, even in the direst environmental emergencies. That is not a view I share. I look forward to hearing the response in reverse to my response in advance. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no problem about the matter being presented in that way because the original amendment by the Minister in a sense determines the significance of all the other amendments. I say straightaway that I am sufficiently satisfied by the Minister's answer not to want to pursue Amendments Nos. 125 and 127. He has not persuaded me at all about Amendment No. 122.
Amendment No. 122 is very different. It is an extremely carefully worded amendment designed not to force, but to give an opportunity to, an enforcing authority to shorten the period of commercial confidentiality if it appears to the authority, having given notice to the person concerned together with an opportunity for him to make representations, that it should be shortened.
908
The Committee will recall that the provision at the moment is for a four-year period of exclusion on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. But there are many cases when a four-year period, even taking a purely business point of view—I address these words perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—is excessive. A company might argue that the information needed to be withheld because it would indicate plans to launch a new product. But if the new product has been launched, then the four-year period is no longer relevant.
It seems to me that the very modest proposals made in Amendment No. 122 to shorten the period under those circumstances, after giving an opportunity for consultation, would not breach commercial confidentiality in any significant way and would improve the state of public availablility of information about environmental pollution.
Under those circumstances, although I do not seek to press Amendments Nos. 125 and 127, I hope that the Minister will reconsider Amendment No. 122.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may speak briefly on Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. My noble friend has already addressed those amendments.
I cannot accept what he said. Amendment No. 123 is designed purely and simply to provide a mechanism for exceptional circumstances. It relates to hearings held under subsection (5) to discuss the potentially confidential nature of certain information. Such hearings cannot be held in public. If this section of the Bill is intended to protect all confidential information a public hearing would be totally inappropriate. I do not think that is what my noble friend said. The amendment provides a mechanism for exceptional circumstances.
With regard to subsection (6) I can easily appreciate that commercial and public interests do not always go hand in hand. Nevertheless, as it is worded subsection (6) allows the Secretary of State not merely to take decisions in individual cases but also to lay down blanket rules overriding particular aspects of the commercial confidentiality protection.
I believe that such provision is implicit in Amendment No. 122. I cannot rest too easily with what we have heard about Amendment Nos. 122, 123 and 124. A balance has to be struck. Although commercial confidentiality is sometimes wildly exaggerated, nevertheless there should be some reasonable provision to protect it. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity between now and another stage to consider the matter again to see whether a better balance can be drawn.
Lord Hesketh: I feel rather like a trout at the bottom of a small stream with gunfire being exchanged over the top of me. If I do not make my noble friend Lord Lucas, or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, entirely happy, I am probably steering a steady middle course.
I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. In the final analysis the Government have to

909
ensure that there is a right that exceeds that of private confidentiality. That provision is in subsection (6). I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if one refers to a product. The greater difficulty is where the process is of an important commercial nature. That is where there may be a problem regarding confidentiality over a four-year period. If one produces a motor car which comes out of the factory into the showroom, everyone has seen it, and there is no point in having four years of confidentiality. Where one has a process that is the key to the success of the company, it is very hard to expose the company by saying that one will reduce that period of confidentiality.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is a government amendment. It is therefore for the Minister to wind up. I believe that I could persuade him between now and a later stage that processes as well as products are finite. There may be scope for advance on that basis.
Lord Hesketh: On that happy note, I commend Amendment No. 121.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 122 to 125 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 24, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may, by order, substitute for the period for the time being specified in subsection (2A) above such other period as he considers appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) Any person may prosecute before a Magistrates' Court proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry but I must move this amendment. I do so fully aware of the fact that the local authority associations which advise me on many of the issues do not agree with me. They are afraid that too open access to the courts to bring proceedings under Part I—I remind noble Lords that Clause 23 is concerned with offences under Part I—would cause difficulties for local authorities. I do not doubt that. However, I believe that in the end we must accept that the range of offences which has been identified under Part I, and which is dealt with in Clause 23, is such that the opening up proposed in subsection (5)—namely, to enable an inspector who is not a barrister or solicitor to prosecute before a magistrates' court—although welcome does not go far enough. Air pollution is so widespread an evil that it may well be that under certain circumstances members of the public may have to have the right to institute proceedings and therefore to prosecute. On that basis I beg to move.
Lord Reay: In another place there was some debate about whether the draft of the Bill brought forward by the Government would allow a person to bring proceedings against the operator of a process without requiring the consent of the enforcing authority or the Director of Public Prosecutions. My honourable friend gave an assurance that it did.
There is a link with this amendment. We are not proposing in subsection (5) that an individual wishing to initiate proceedings should have to use an inspector of the enforcing authority to present his case—far from it. Magistrates' courts procedures insist that proceedings for an offence must be initiated by the laying of information and that information must be laid by an individual. An individual who lays that information before the magistrates' court—and thus meets the concern of the noble Lord—has the right to prosecute in person. If he prefers he may employ a barrister or a solicitor to bring the case for him.
Subsection (5) does not alter that right in any way. It meets a point which arises where enforcing authorities bring their own proceedings. In these cases it is not axiomatic that the person who lays the information before the court will necessarily be the person in the authority to prosecute the proceedings in the court. The effect of subsection (5), which is precedented in existing environmental legislation, is therefore to allow any inspector to prosecute before a magistrates' court, even though he or she may not have laid the information before the court in the first instance. That is why we wish to retain subsection (5). It does not limit the rights of individuals but allows for more effective public administration.
As the current wording of the Bill already meets the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I hope he will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was fascinated by the Minister's reply and I shall struggle to understand it between now and a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Enforcement by High Court]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 26, line 9, after ("Court") insert ("or, in Scotland, in any court of competent jurisdiction").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 130 adapts Clause 24 for Scotland. It provides that where an enforcing authority in Scotland wishes to take court proceedings to ensure compliance with an enforcement or prohibition notice such proceedings can be taken in any court or competent jurisdiction; that is either the sheriff court of the Court of Session. The wording of the amendment follows the precedent of Section 58(8) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Authorisations and other statutory controls]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 27, line 49, at end insert:
("(5) Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land—

(a) is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographic features; and

(b) may at any time be affected by an authorisation given by an enforcing authority to release substances from a prescribed process into water,

the Council shall notify the fact that the land is of special interest for that reason to the relevant enforcing authority.
(6) Where the activities comprising a prescribed process include the release of any substances into water likely to affect any area notified under subsection (5) above, the enforcing authority shall consult the Nature Conservancy Council before authorising any release.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 131 is to require enforcing authorities to consult the Nature Conservancy Council where an authorisation to release substances into water may affect special sites.
At present, the National Rivers Authority authorises releases into water from prescribed processes. Under Section 9 of the Water Act 1989 it has a specific duty to consult the Nature Conservancy Council before authorising any discharge likely to affect an SSSI.
The Nature Conservancy Council is also obliged to notify relevant SSSIs to the NRA. It is important that those duties towards areas of special scientific interest for nature conservation are maintained when responsibility is transferred to the new enforcement authorities. The NCC has established a good working relationship with the NRA. That was strengthened when new duties to consult the NCC on activities affecting SSSIs were introduced in Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It will be unfortunate if that link is not passed over to the chief inspector of HMIP.
The Department of the Environment has declined to take forward an amendment requested by the Nature Conservancy Council. It said that many bodies have a legitimate interest in being consulted and that they could not all be listed. That may be true. However, it is clear from Section 9 of the Water Act 1989 that only the Nature Conservancy Council, the National Parks Authority and the Broads Authority in their respective areas have a statutory basis as consultees. We feel that the statutory basis of that consultation is very important and we wish to see it carried forward. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: It is a natural desire of organisations to be statutory consultees. But the difficulty of prescribing such organisations on the face of the Bill is to decide where one stops. No matter how many organisations we include, there is always the risk that somebody may be left out, or circumstances
912
may change and an organisation which did not need to be consulted 10 years previously is clearly appropriate now. For such reasons we concluded that, apart from the NRA, whose interest is of particular importance to the setting of conditions relating to releases to water, we should not provide for other statutory consultees on the face of this part of the Bill.
I note, additionally, that the NCC is already a statutory consultee under planning legislation for development in an area of special scientific interest which has been notified to the local planning authority. There are likely to be few, if any, cases where an IPC authorisation for new process does not involve development requiring planning permission.
I am not persuaded that an amendment placing a duty on the NCC (and its successors) to notify SSSIs to the enforcing authorities is necessary. However, my officials have already given an assurance to the NCC, which I am happy to repeat, which goes further than the second part of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. She requires releases to water to be notified to the NCC only when such a release may affect an SSSI; but why not releases to air, and land too? We already propose to prescribe the NCC as a statutory consultee for IPC under Schedule 1 where releases may affect an SSSI. It will therefore be in the interests of the NCC and its successor bodies to notify HMIP of the location of SSSIs and it is therefore unnecessary to place the council under a duty to do so, as the amendment does.
While I am giving assurances to the NCC perhaps this is also a convenient moment to state that it will be consulted on the regulations prescribing processes and substances. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: Although I appreciate the limited areas in which the NCC is to be consulted, I am rather disappointed at the Government's attitude, as indicated in the first part of the Minister's reply, that the NCC is just another body. Surely as the Government's statutory adviser on conservation matters it requires special status.
I do not propose to press the amendment. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said, but I am not very happy that he has felt unable to accept the first part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two o'clock.