Lords Sitting of 21 June 1990

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lora Bishop of Peterborough): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Air Transport: Denied Boarding Compensation
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will list those civil aviation matters discussed at the meeting of the European Council of Transport Ministers held on 18th/19th June indicating agreements reached and action decided upon, with particular reference to any proposals put forward by the Commission on denied boarding compensation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, EC Transport Ministers agreed a second stage of air transport liberalisation measures, and committed themselves to a single market in aviation by 1992. Regulations on fares, market access and capacity sharing, and on the application of the competition rules to air transport were agreed. Agreement was also reached on a mandate for the opening of negotiations in aviation matters with EFTA. Commitments were made to adopt measures to liberalise air cargo services by 31st March 1991 and to deal with predatory activities by airlines. The Commission's proposals on denied boarding compensation were not, however, discussed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I believe that there is much for us to study in that most helpful reply which indicates action rather than procrastination. I believe that the Government have worked hard to bring about this change. Can the House be sure that they will continue to keep up the pressure in Europe so that the interim measures in the autumn, and the more radical general measures post-1992, will bring wider competition and cheaper air fares? That is what people expect.
Perhaps I may ask one further question. Looking at the next two and a half years, are the Government able to accept that it is vital that we solve the problem of slot allocation if any of this action is to be a success?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we welcome the generous comments of the noble Baroness about the pressure by this country in respect of these matters. I can absolutely assure her that we shall keep up that pressure. We have been leading, and will continue to lead, in the field to bring about the maximum degree of liberalisation which will lead to a free, fair and open competitive market in aviation.
On the second part of the noble Baroness's question, at the Council the Commission said that it would be bringing forward proposals for slot allocation by September of this year.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that the House will be pleased with the exhaustive statement that the noble Baroness has made. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, raised in her Question an important point about denied boarding compensation to which I hope the Government will pay attention. I believe that the noble Baroness spoke in general terms about denied boarding compensation with regard to regular passengers. I hope that the Government will consider not only passengers on scheduled flights but those on chartered flights who are unable to board a plane because it is overbooked. For such passengers the situation may be even more serious when it affects their fortnight's holiday than for those regular travellers who can always catch the next scheduled flight.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the proposals on denied boarding compensation will be issued for consultation and we shall hear more about them.
Chartered flights are not subject to these measures because chartered flying is a freer, fairer and more open market. However, I note the cautionary remarks of the noble Lord and will pass them on to the departments.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I forgot to ask the Minister this question. Can she give us the date of the next Council meeting? I believe that she said a statement will be made by the Commission in September. Will that be before, at or after the Council meeting?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be precise about the date. However, I believe that there is a Council meeting in July, but that of course will be too early for this set of proposals. Therefore, the matter will be dealt with at a meeting much closer to the September date.

Motorway Speed Limits: Enforcement
3.5 p.m.
Viscount Head Viscount Head asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to secure better enforcement of the existing speed limits on motorways.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the responsibility for enforcing speed limits rests with individual chief officers of police. The enforcement of any particular law is for them to determine in the light of other police commitments.
Viscount Head: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the speed limits on motorways are held in utter contempt today? Will the Government consider urgent legislation to reduce those speeds and make the motorways safer places?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am fully aware that a great number of people exceed the speed limits on motorways, and no doubt noble Lords make a contribution. It is for chief police officers to decide how to deploy their forces. The motorways of the

1043
United Kingdom carry 15 per cent. of the traffic, but only 2 per cent. of all accidents occur on motorways. In international comparisons, the United Kingdom motorways are among the safest.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the chief difficulty regarding speed on motorways lies with contraflows, with the lethal M.25 and with repair works? I recognise what he says and appreciate the fact that the police force must decide for itself on the best use of manpower. However, cannot cameras be used on the motorways with much more effect in order to ascertain speed? Would it not also be useful for those cameras to be advertised so that they are a deterrent as well as a source for conviction?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, for a moment I thought that my powers of hearing were going. I thought the noble Lord was suggesting that we use candles. I then thought he was referring to camels! I then realised that the word was "cameras".
The noble Lord is perfectly correct: there is a possibility of using such weapons. The White Paper The Road User and the Law published on 7th February set out the Government's proposals to allow the use of automatic detection devices for speeding and traffic offences, and legislation to implement those will be introduced when the parliamentary timetable permits.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lord, does my noble friend agree that one of the ways in which he could meet the point in the noble Viscount's Question is to consider setting the speed limit at a slightly more realistic level in these days of much improved roads and much safer and improved motor cars? Many people —I have to admit that I am one—find excessive difficulty in maintaining the statutory speed limit of 70 miles per hour. A slightly more realistic level might contribute towards solving this difficulty and might be respected by more people.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend admits to his failings in obeying the speed limits. However, it is a point that is constantly produced. The 70 miles per hour speed limit strikes a balance between fast, convenient travel and safety. The average motorways speeds, according to the national speed survey of 1987, were 65 mph for cars, 59 mph for buses and coaches and 54 mph for lorries. My noble friend may be surprised at those figures but apparently they are correct.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Earl stated that only 2 per cent. of accidents occur on motorways. Can he tell the House what percentage of our roads have motorway status?
Earl Ferrers: No, my Lords, I cannot.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, my noble friend said that action is up to the chief constables of the local areas concerned. I completely understand that. However, I ask myself, and perhaps I may ask him, why the local chief constables and the local
1044
police authorities cannot correct the signs which are put up to indicate local building works. One sees notices of hazards one mile ahead, or which indicate that there is a 50 mph speed limit in operation or perhaps a speed restriction of 30 mph. But as one drives along there is no evidence of anything happening and the signs eventually peter out. Does the Minister consider that that is a direct inducement for people to get fed up with obeying instructions which on the face of it have importance and to which they would pay much more attention if they were told why they were there?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend by saying that that is a question which I ask myself. I agree with him.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the United States a speed limit of 55 mph is in force on all turnpike roads and that it is enforced without difficulty by the employment of a special traffic corps of policemen, many of whom ride motor cycles? Is it not the case that the law in this country will not be enforced in that area until we do the same?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that in fact that is so. About 8 per cent. of our police force is engaged specifically on traffic work. A number of other officers become involved in traffic work in the course of carrying out their responsibilities. In 1987 35 states in the United States decided to raise the speed limits on rural interstate highways from 55 mph to 65 mph, with the result that road deaths increased by 16 per cent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, despite the figures that the Minister has just given for speed limits, does he agree that virtually everyone knows that some of the worst offenders are heavy lorries which belt along the motorways, even in wet weather such as we have today, at 70 mph, 75 mph and sometimes even 80 mph? Does he further agree that those lorries constitute an increasing hazard to ordinary motorists? Will the Government reconsider their attitude and insist on legislation to introduce speed limiters in order to keep lorries down to the permitted speed of 60 mph on motorways?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if we were to produce legislation to ensure that lorries kept to the correct speed, we should have to ensure that motor cars did so as well. As I explained, it is a matter of enforcement. Police officers have to carry out enforcement as best they can. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it is a great hazard when one finds oneself behind a lorry, as he puts it, belting along the motorway at 80 mph with water flying all over the place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I believe that I spoke of speed limiters. I am not sure whether the Minister understood exactly what I meant. I was referring to fitting speed governors in the same way as we have on coaches.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to a mechanical device which prevents equipment from going faster than it should do, that is an idea which I shall consider.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that those who use the motorways a great deal are aware of one remarkable situation? One is aware that speeds are being excessively abused; suddenly a police car appears and every vehicle slows down. Would it not be possible for the Government to inquire of a cross-section of chief constables whose areas include the great motorways whether it would be of any help to have more police vehicles on the road, as their presence acts as a deterrent to anyone intending to break the law?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. That is why chief constables and police authorities are always coming to me asking for more men to deal with road traffic offences and every other kind of criminal activity. I agree with him that the presence of a police vehicle makes a great deal of difference. However, I give him one warning: some police forces operate vehicles which are not evidently police cars and the noble Lord may get caught out one day!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the majority of member states of the European Community apply a substantially lower speed limit to heavy goods vehicles and coaches than we apply in this country? Is he aware that in fact there is a proposal on the table of transport Ministers which envisages just such an approach? What is the Government's current attitude to that proposal, which apparently would receive the support of no less a person than my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who is not normally an advocate of European legislation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it does not surprise me that such support comes from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, but views to the contrary might come from many vehicle owners and operators. Certainly the matter will be considered.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I should like to follow up the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I do not agree with him on all issues but I do on this one. What would be the noble Earl's advice. to a motorist proceeding at approximately 70 mph in the outer lane when overtaken in the middle lane by a great lorry thundering along at nearly 80 mph and throwing up a great spray? Should that motorist go to 85 mph to overtake the lorry or not?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is interesting to hear the noble Lord in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. That event will have to go down in one of the annals of history. The answer to his question is that the motorist in the right-hand lane doing 70 mph ought to have been in the left-hand lane in order to allow others to overtake him should they wish to break the Law.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister wish to have that remark go on record in Hansard without any proviso at all?
Earl Ferrers: The proviso, my Lords, is that anyone who is driving along a motorway is obliged to use the inside lane primarily, the middle lane for overtaking and the third lane for overtaking after that. Drivers are not permitted under the law to hog the outside lane.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, from what the noble Earl said I was under the impression that we should make a contribution and move over to allow those who want to break the law in this island to do so. Did he really mean that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that the regulations and motorway practice require one to use the inside lane other than when one desires to overtake. It is no defence to drive in the outside lane without any intention of moving over to the inside lane.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, did I hear correctly that the noble Earl mentioned the raising of speed limits in certain states in the United States and accompanied his remarks with the information that following the raising of speed limits the number of accidents also increased? If so, is that not an answer to those who would like to raise the speed limits in this country? Does he agree that it is an indication that we should lower the speed limit on motorways in this country both for safety and for more efficient use of petrol?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was trying to explain to the House, if the experience of the United States was anything to go by, that when they raised the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph, the number of accidents increased by 16 per cent. If that experience were repeated on motorways in Britain, 42 more people would be killed. That is why we think it appropriate to keep the level as it is. The noble Lord would like to lower the limit. I presume that if we lowered it to 10 mph very few people would be killed.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, there are two more Questions to come. I know that it may not seem very equitable, but perhaps I may suggest that the noble Viscount, who has been trying to speak for some while, asks one more supplementary question and then we move on to the next one.
Viscount Head: My Lords, it is a well known and understood fact that an increase in speed increases the risk of an accident. Presumably that is why we have speed limits. It is well known that heavy goods vehicles cause a lot of accidents. I understand that coaches will have mandatory governors fitted next year. Why cannot heavy goods vehicles have governors fitted also?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the question of whether governors are fitted to different kinds of vehicles

1047
falls outside the scope of this Question. If the noble Viscount wishes to ask a specific question on that matter, then I shall try to answer it.

Water Supply Sources
3.20 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have given any direction to the water companies about the desirable proportion of the water supply to be derived from bore-holes, and what proportion of its water supply the Anglian Water Company derives from bore-holes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the abstraction of water from bore-holes—like any other abstraction of inland water—is subject to the approval of full consideration of the environmental and water resource implications. It is up to individual water companies to decide how they want to obtain water. The Anglian Water Company obtains some 50 per cent. of its supplies from groundwater.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Noting the extremely high percentage of water which the Anglian Water Company derives from bore-holes—I believe it to be the highest of any company —does he not agree that water derived from bore-holes is much more damaging in conservation terms than that derived from reservoirs because of the long-term depletion of the water table? Is he also aware that that company has dug a further 30 bore-holes in the past nine months and boasts of having no intention of building a reservoir for 20 years? Will he ask the National Rivers Authority to suggest to the Anglian Water Company that it should not be permitted to dig more bore-holes until it announces a programme of reservoir construction?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am more than happy to concur with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with regard to the 30 bore-holes. It is important that we should remind ourselves that water is water above or below the ground. It is all very well for the noble Lord to suggest that we should ask the Anglian Water Company to consider the construction of reservoirs. I am sure that he is aware of the excitement caused by the construction of Rutland Water. That raised environmental problems which many would consider are just as great above ground as below it.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, is the Minister aware of growing anxiety throughout East Anglia at the effect of the high level of abstraction from underground aquifers? Will he invite the National Rivers Authority to publish regular statistics which show the current state of our aquifers and the proposed rate of decline or increase so that we know what we are talking about?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the National Rivers Authority's job is to ensure that abstractions are
1048
permitted only if they are sustainable and do not cause unacceptable environmental damage. Water table levels in East Anglia are at a low level after two very dry winters. However, they are not at historically low levels.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, I was unaware that 30 new bore-holes had been drilled. Can the noble Lord say whether the recent abrupt decline in the water table in Norfolk can be attributed to that action on the part of the Anglian Water Company?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the present low levels are due to low rainfall during the past two winters.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the great drought of 1976 the record of the Anglian Water Authority, as it then was, in the management of its water resources was quite outstanding? It was able to maintain supplies despite great difficulties. The area relies on a high proportion of groundwater supplies, the countryside being very flat and reservoirs a difficult proposition. Is my noble friend aware that the implication in this Question is not justified?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nugent brings to the attention of your Lordships' House two important points: first, that in the 1976 drought the greatest problems were found by those authorities which depended more on reservoirs than on bore-holes; and secondly, that East Anglia is very flat and, as a result, the attraction of reservoirs less than in other areas.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that water extraction is clearly affecting the habitats and, therefore, survival of some uncommon plants? My husband, who is a botanist, tells me that a sedge, carex appropinquata, is vanishing from East Anglia where, some time ago, it was in quite good supply —no doubt because of the water abstraction?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the biggest influence on the level of the water table is the level of rainfall and not abstraction. Where I live there are no bore-holes at all but the water table has fallen precipitately, entirely due to the low level of rainfall.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that quite a number of rivers in England and Wales are seriously depleted for a variety of reasons? Is he satisfied that the National Rivers Authority has sufficient teeth to grip that problem?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the National Rivers Authority is well aware that it has a duty as regards over-abstraction affecting river flows and at present is studying 20 rivers in that respect.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister sure of his statement that rainfall is the cause of the low water levels? About 30 years ago I wanted to build a bore-hole and the water authority in my area refused permission because the number of bore-holes had permanently lowered the water tables in that area?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is aware of the number of abstraction licences and their amount of use and of the counterpart to his argument; namely, that the water table in London is rising due to the reduction of industry over a long period.

Channel Tunnel: Effect on Kent
3.26 p.m.
Viscount Cross Viscount Cross asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are prepared to let the Channel Tunnel rail link go unbuilt, and if so, what impact they expect the tunnel to have on the roads of Kent in the absence of this link.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, it is doubtful whether a new Channel Tunnel rail link would have any significant effect on Kent's roads. It is additional passenger capacity, not additional freight capacity, which British Rail thinks will be necessary and for which the new link is envisaged. In the passenger market British Rail expects to be competing mainly with air services.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather disappointing reply. Despite the discussions which took place in the other place last week, I make no apology for leaving this Question on the Order Paper. It is a matter of the greatest economic importance to the whole country and there is always time for second thoughts. Have the Government considered the implications of the flood of freight lorries which will pour on to the roads of Kent? Apart from the likely congestion, how does the emission of large quantities of diesel fumes and carbon dioxide line up with the Government's so-called green policies?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the Government do not expect the amount of lorries in Kent to increase substantially. In addition to what my noble friend said, the Government have a large programme of road improvements under way in Kent; for example, on the M.20, the A.20, the M.2, the A.2, the A.259, the A.261, the M.25 and many local roads.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister's reply is rather surprising. He must know that something like 16 million additional passengers will be using lines in Kent which are among the most congested in the world. Many commuters are bound to be forced on to what are already inadequate roads in trying to reach their destinations by car. Have the Government fully explored the statement by the European Commissioner on 4th June that there could be financial assistance from the Commission for a rail link if the UK Government applied for it? Does he not think that a link will be ultimately required? Would it not be a good idea to pursue the possibility of outside finance from Europe and to get started on a link that will ultimately be essential?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, with regard to commuters being neglected, the
1050
answer is no. Investment in Network SouthEast is currently the highest since the change from steam to diesel in the early 1960s. As regards EC funding, the noble Lord is right. There has been an offer of EC funding but that in no way makes up the difference in cost.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister explain, further to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, how the Government's policy —or lack of policy —in relation to the rail link is consonant with the commitment the Government entered into in the Single European Act that environmental considerations should be an essential component of all other policies, including transport policies?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's final point, the Government are committed to environmental policies. I should explain that the joint venture requires £500 million of subsidy for commuters; for British Rail to spend up to £400 million on new terminals, and for a low-interest deferred loan of £1 billion which, in the case of default, would rank below other creditors.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Rail has put forward three or four schemes which have blighted many areas in Kent? Is he also aware that British Rail has bought many homes in north Kent, and that many people in Kent are unable to sell their properties and move out due to the lack of certainty that exists? The present lack of decision reflects no credit on the Government or indeed on British Rail. The whole set-up is a shambles and a disgrace.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, it is up to British Rail to bring forward new schemes which meet the Government's criteria. In answer to the noble Lord's second point, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has powers under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order to require local planning authorities not to approve applications for planning permission which would interfere with the proposed new line. Regarding the noble Lord's final point, adequate compensation measures are in place.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Oilseeds Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1990, the Second Reading of the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill and the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill will be taken.

Broadcasting Bill
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Broadcasting Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 5,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 6 to 21,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 22 to 51,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 52 to 62,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 63 to 78,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 79 to 120,

Schedule 7,

Clause 121,

Schedule 8,

Clause 122,

Schedule 9,

Clause 123,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 124 to 130,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 131 to 139,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 140 to 150,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 151 to 159,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 160 to 164,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 165 to 167,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 168 to 181,

Schedules 17 and 18,

Clause 182. —(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.35 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That this House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 29 [Preliminary]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 132:
Page 28, line 3, at beginning insert:
("( ) This Part shall have effect for the purposes of reducing pollution to the environment from the treatment, keeping, transport, deposit or disposal of controlled waste, and for the improvement in the standards of such activities by bodies to which this Part relates, including any companies formed under section 31(2) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 132 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and
1052
149. These amendments are necessary due to the profound failings in the arrangements the Government have made regarding the relationship between local authorities which have responsibility under Part II of the Bill and the LAWDCs —the waste disposal contractors—and also because of the inadequacy of the provision for the LAWDCs.
The starting point for our discussion should be consideration of the total size of the waste management industry. We should take account of the relationship between the public and the private sector in that industry; the effect of the Bill and the higher standards—for which we should be thankful—that it will impose on waste management, on its costs and therefore on the size of the industry. We should also consider the Government's motivation for implementing those changes and what action should be taken in that regard.
The size of the waste management industry in this country is difficult to estimate. The best estimates are that its value in turnover terms is between £500 million and £1·5 billion. The public sector probably represents one-third of that amount. Estimating the effect on costs of the proposals is even more difficult. We start from a dubious point and are attempting to estimate the effect of something which has not yet become legislation. Our best estimate is that it will approximately triple the cost. We therefore end up with a value for the public sector waste management industry of between £500 million and £1·5 billion.
The Government's motivation for implementing the Bill is very clear. They are looking for a further opportunity for privatisation. Are the arrangements which they are making for privatisation satisfactory, and will they produce the results that the Government want?
The first problem to which Amendment No. 132 relates is the inadequate definition of what are the purposes of reducing pollution in the environment. That definition is inadequate in Clause 29 and also when we come to the companies formed under Clause 31. The main problem to which Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 are addressed is that local authorities do not have control of the waste disposal contractors. They are restricted by legislation from forming more than 20 per cent. of the management boards. Yet the local authority waste disposal contractors are in their turn restricted from raising capital except at the expense of other local authority expenditure.
That is the thrust of the amendments and why we believe the arrangements proposed are unsatisfactory. It means that if waste disposal contractors are to engage in capital expenditure—which may be significant because it is a capital intensive industry when one is comtemplating setting up new sites for disposal —local authorities will lose the capital authorisation for all the other schemes which may be thought, under the relevant heading of capital expenditure, to be competing with it. Waste disposal contractors will be severely tempted to opt for revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure and therefore to take the less satisfactory economic and business option.

1053
Waste disposal contractors may not be able to work as effectively as they should because they are restricted by the capital controls, but also because many of them will be small. They will relate to the areas of single local authorities and will have to compete with contracts for individual sites. If they lose the contract for the nearest site, bearing in mind that the economics of the business depend on how close one is to the disposal site, the result will be an unsatisfactory, uneconomic and unbusinesslike approach to waste disposal management.
Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 seek to remove the capital controls on LAWDCs in order to allow them to make proper business decisions, and to ensure that they have adequate responsibilities, powers and relationships with local government to do their job properly. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should be thanked for putting forward an amendment which states the intention of Part II. Some noble Lords may know that I am very much in favour of purpose clauses. This amendment will help to interpret the fairly lengthy and complicated provisions of Part II of the Bill. It gives a clear indication of what those clauses are about and the purposes that they have in mind. Therefore, as I said, that will have the advantage of aiding interpretation.
I cannot see any disadvantage in having this amendment although I must say that I do not think it is necessary to have the last few words:
"including any companies formed under section 31(2) below".
I listened to what the noble Lord said about that but I rather doubt whether it is necessary to single out that particular provision which refers to the companies that the Secretary of State may assist to get established. With that proviso I somewhat favour this amendment and it will be interesting to hear what my noble friends on the Front Bench have to say about it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The subject of waste has attracted increasing public interest and concern over the past few years. It is no coincidence that it occupies the largest single part of the Bill. I confidently expect a high standard of debate from many noble Lords who have laboured so unremittingly over recent years on scrutinising our waste policies on your Lordships' Select Committees, the Royal Commission, and elsewhere. The first debate on Part II of the Bill provides an excellent opportunity for us to consider the purposes and the underlying thrust of the measures on waste management.
Amendment No. 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, offers one suggested statement of the purpose of Part II. I would, perhaps with only a subjective difference of viewpoint, approach these measures from a slightly different angle. It may assist the Committee if I set out in some depth what that viewpoint is so that we may all approach the detailed provisions of Part II with a better understanding of the Government's general approach.
1054
The provisions of Part II are not mainly about reducing pollution; nor are they directly about improving standards. By that I mean that we do not have a series of clauses dealing with each particular waste problem and saying what should be done with it. Instead, we are setting out an enabling framework through the regulatory and control regimes for the duties and discretionary powers put upon authorities and individuals. We are building and setting in motion the mechanisms which will raise standards and reduce, or where possible eliminate, pollution. The provisions of Part II are more the stage machinery rather than the performance. We have a plot, we are providing the props and casting the actors. Their detailed lines will be issued in regulations and advice, but the play itself will be acted out only by implementation and enforcement in the field.
An obvious example may make this clearer. We have firm and unequivocal policies on the operation and the care of waste disposal sites. There is detailed technical guidance in waste management papers issued by the department. That advice is updated with technical advances. However, the approach of Part II is not to lay down targets, objectives or prescriptions for landfill sites on the face of the Bill. Instead we are giving the waste regulatory authorities increased powers to raise standards themselves by the conditions they attach to licences in individual local circumstances, by their enforcement of those conditions and in the much tougher long-term responsibilities of licence holders themselves. In addition, we are reforming the authorities to ensure that they use their powers effectively. It is by the use of these powers that pollution will be minimised and standards enforced.
In the case of this amendment the Opposition invite us to subscribe to the objectives of reducing pollution and improving standards. The Government certainly endorse both those objectives. However, I am not at all convinced that the statement is comprehensive or correct. For example, the list of activities covered does not include the production of waste, about which the Opposition are clearly concerned in their amendments promoting waste minimisation. On the other hand, the list includes the transport of waste, which is not any part of the controls in this part or this Bill but is effectively covered by transport legislation. Nor am I happy with the list of bodies whose standards are to be improved; it is not at all clear to me that as drafted it includes the full list of persons subject to the duty of care. Are all such persons bodies? This is not nit-picking; and I say that advisedly, bearing in mind the remarks that my noble friend Lord Renton made earlier.
The risk of a general declaratory clause is that it may confuse or even prejudice the interpretation of specific powers. If the specific provision of Part II were not within the purpose of this clause there would be some risk of casting doubt on that provision. As the couple of small examples I have just given show, it is very difficult to draft a single sweeping declaration that fully and accurately covers the variety of purposes served by the wide range of powers in this part of the Bill.

1055
I have to say that, quite apart from any deficiencies of detail in the amendment, I cannot see that such a general declaration adds anything to the specific provisions of Part II. Let us stick to saying in each clause what we wish to happen in detail and let each clause stand to be interpreted on its own, subject to the specific interpretations provided in this clause and Clauses 71 and 72.
The Government's own purpose in Part II is clear —to create a system of control and regulation which will deliver reliable environmental protection against pollution from waste. On that test the provisions of these clauses stand to be judged.
Amendment No. 148, taken with Amendment No. 149, would have the effect of removing arm's length status from LAWDCs, leaving them as wholly-owned subsidiaries of their controlling authorities. One of the fundamental principles of this part of the Bill is the separation of waste disposal operations from regulation. For this separation to be properly achieved it is vital that LAWDCs should operate at arm's length so that the company is run as a genuinely independent financial concern. By operation at arm's length, the LAWDC will be subject to the full effects of the market rather than being protected by the controlling authority.
There are also certain advantages to be gained. For example, the LAWDC will be free to invite a contractor of its choice to carry out a particular function on its behalf rather than being bound by the competitive tendering regulations that apply to a controlled local authority company. Also, its board meetings will be exempt from certain rules applying to local authority meetings.
Amendment No. 148 would also make it a function of LAWDCs to secure the reduction of pollution of the environment in their handling and disposal of waste. I cannot see that it is necessary to impose such a function on LAWDCs. They will operate their sites in accordance with the terms of their waste management licences, and those licences will contain the full range of conditions to reduce environmental pollution. It will be for regulation authorities to enforce the higher standards we all now expect. LAWDCs will also be operating under the terms of contracts let by disposal authorities who will be required to take account of environmental factors when awarding contracts. It is for those reasons that we resist the amendments.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies perhaps I may just acknowledge that my noble friend —I am speaking only in relation to Amendment No. 132 —has given reasons which I must say had not occurred to me and may not have occurred to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for thinking that this statement of purpose in Amendment No. 132 is not wide enough to cover the various provisions of this part to which the amendment relates.
My noble friend gave a great deal of detail in support of that proposition. Speaking for myself, I would prefer to study that rather lengthy statement before having to reach a conclusion on this amendment at this stage. I hope that the noble Lord,
1056
Lord McIntosh, will feel that the wisest course to take is to study the matter further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have been deprived of the opportunity of saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his support. For very understandable reasons his support has now been withdrawn.
There are two reasons why I cannot take his advice. The first relates to the specific point which he first raised; that is, the need for a purpose definition at the very beginning of a part of the Bill. I shall come to that point when I deal with the second reason why in Amendment No. 132 we refer specifically to companies formed under Clause 31(2).
I have no difficulty with the comment made by the Minister about,
"improvement in the standards of such activities by bodies to which this Part relates".
It is intended that we should be talking about improvement in the standards of such activities by all the bodies to which this part of the Bill refers. If the Minister is suggesting that these bodies have different kinds of status —some being public authorities and others being private persons or companies —then I suggest to the Committee that the word "bodies" acts perfectly well to cover them all.
The only other point of any significance which the Minister made about the wording in Amendment No. 132 and therefore in Amendment No. 148, was the omission concerning the production of waste in the environment. It may be that my understanding of Part II of the Bill is defective. It seemed that when it comes to the production of waste the provisions in that part of the Bill are very different from those of waste management. The bulk of Part II refers to management which is the,
"treatment, keeping, transport, deposit or disposal of controlled waste".
To that extent I am content that my purposive amendment should refer to the management of waste rather than to the production.
There was one further objection that the Minister raised and that was to the use of the word "transport". He said that the transport of waste was a matter for transport legislation and should not be covered by this Bill. The debate in Committee on Tuesday made it clear that it in our view that is not the case. The transport of waste should be covered by this Bill. We have tabled subsequent amendments to secure that end. The carrying of this amendment now would make it easier for us to argue as regards our subsequent amendments that the transport of waste should be included in this part of the Bill.
The more important aspect to which I refer is the role of the waste disposal companies in Part II of the Bill. As the Minister quite clearly described, we have a series of provisions for dealing with waste on land. Then we have spatchcocked into the middle of that a proposal that is not justified by any other part of the Bill for, as he described it, a move towards waste disposal companies; —in other words, a move away from the activities of local authorities and a move towards arm's length companies.

1057
It is that introduction of a totally different political objective into the environmental objective of Part II of the Bill to which we object most strongly. We do so for reasons that are very well known. They were rehearsed at length when we dealt with the Local Government and Housing Bill in 1989. We believe that these arm's length companies are an uneasy compromise between the public and private sectors. They do not achieve the objectives of full privatisation and the virtues that there might be from that if accompanied by liberalisation and freedom of effective business management. Nor do these companies achieve the objective of being properly co-ordinated with the activities of local authorities themselves.
I have not heard an adequate answer from the Minister to the use of the compulsory competitive tendering procedure. He referred to that dismissively as though it were not the Government's own idea. He said that it is not satisfactory for the purpose of Part II of the Bill. Having set out the CCT procedure, I should have thought that the Government would be anxious to find an opportunity to use it. Instead they Choose to set up an arm's length relationship which is fatally flawed; first, by the fact that it does not include freedom of capital expenditure —and therefore cannot make the proper decisions —and, secondly, because the size and the nature of operations of these arm's length companies is not satisfactory for fully privatised operations. It is that uneasy compromise which makes it necessary for us to refer to the companies formed under Clause 31(2), to use the wording of Amendment No. 132. It is because Clause 31 is ill-at-ease with the remainder of Part II of the Bill that we have to repeat those objectives in Amendment No. 148 to make sure that they apply to the companies set up under Clause 31. In addition, that is why in Amendment No. 149 to Schedule 2 we have to remove the reference to arm's length companies. The objectives of Part II of the Bill are well understood and have been widely accepted in Committee.
Lord Hesketh: Be it not for me to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am always more than happy to listen to his erudite words. One thing I can promise him is that privatisation was never any part of the concept of what we are trying to do here. We are trying to separate regulation and operation. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember that it is almost exactly 12 months ago that we were dealing with Part V of a previous Bill that came before this Chamber. We were pointing out the differentials with regard to capital control. The underlying principle is regulation, operation and separation; it has nothing to do with privatisation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept that that is in the Government's mind. However, I have to look at the effect of what the Government are saying in the Bill. It may well be that their intention is to set out the difference between regulation and operation. The fact of the matter is that the Bill produces companies which are at arm's length yet which are
1058
subject to the capital controls imposed on local authorities as a whole. Therefore, they are inextricably linked in a most unsatisfactory and comprised way with the finances of local authorities.
It is that unsatisfactory compromise to which we object. It is for that reason that we feel that Part II of the Bill is gravely damaged by the provisions of Clause 31. That damage has to be eliminated right at the outset in the way in which we set forward the purposes of Part II of the Bill. It is not that we are unsympathetic to the Bill as a whole, but we think that the Government themselves are shooting Part II of the Bill in the foot by the provisions that they have put forward for the formation of the waste disposal companies. It is for that reason that we believe the Committee should be advised to take out the offending parts and to clarify the purposes of the Bill.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 132) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 123.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kearton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Lawrence, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Blease, L.

B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Milner of Leeds, L.

L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Northfieid, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Galpern, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

[Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Greenway, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hirshfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Varley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hunt, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

1059

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Alport, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Arran, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Balfour, E.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beloff, L.

Milverton, L.

Belstead, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Birdwood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Blatch, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Boardman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Moyne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Burton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Nelson, E.

Caccia, L.

Norrie, L.

Caithness, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Caldecote, V.

Orkney, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Carrington, L.

Pearson of Rannock, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pender, L.

Chelmer, L.

Perth, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Porritt, L.

Colwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Renton, L.

Craigton, L.

Renwick, L.

Cross, V.

Rodney, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Roskill, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eccles, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elles, B.

Sandys, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Savile, L.

Elton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sharpies, B.

Faithfull, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Slim. V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

Gisborough, L.

L.

Grantchester, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Hesketh, L.

E.

Hives, L.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B.

Tenby, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Terrington, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Teviot, L.

Ilchester, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kintore, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsay, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 133 to 137:
Page 28, line 5, after first ("of") insert ("—(a)").
Page 28, line 5, leave out ("media") and insert ("elements").
Page 28, line 6, at end insert:
("(b) the natural environment subsisting in or supported by those elements; or
(c) the physical environment of buildings or other natural or man made structures above, or below ground.").
1060
Page 28, line 8, leave out ("any environmental medium") and insert ("the environment").
Page 28, line 13, at end insert ("or(e) any other source").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 133 to 137, 140 and 141 cover ground very similar to that which we covered in Part I of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in replying, gave quite an interesting response to our amendments, I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I did not move them.
[Amendments Nos. 133 to 137 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 138:
Page 28, line 18, after ("plant") insert ("vehicles").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 138 is a little different. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, gave an interesting reply to the amendment but he was in my view wrong. I must therefore raise the matter again.
On Tuesday, 19th June the noble Lord said that the Bill is not concerned with controls on vehicles for transporting waste. He said:
"That is already the responsibility of the Department of Transport".—[Official Report, 19/6/90; col. 782.]
That is not a satisfactory way to deal with waste management. It does not make any sense if we go anywhere near to accepting the purpose of Part II as proposed in the previous amendment, the provisions of which, with some exceptions, were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Those who are responsible for the reduction, the treatment, the keeping, the deposit and the disposal of controlled waste are frequently also responsible for the transport of waste. The idea that one should go from one set of provisions for all the other aspects to transport legislation for the transport of waste and then out of transport legislation again for the disposal of waste is a legislative nonsense. It demonstrates what we have always said about environmental legislation; namely, that the terms of reference of the Department of the Environment alone are simply not satisfactory to deal with all of the problems of the environment—problems which this Bill ought to be tackling.
In the Bill we have the absurd position that mobile plant is covered only when the mobile plant is itself treating waste as it moves or as it sits at the origin or destination of its journey. If the plant is not treating the waste it is not covered, although it could be a virtually identical piece of plant. One can think of it as a readymix concrete lorry which turns concrete as it moves, using power take-off from the engine. If it happens not be treating the waste it is not covered by the Bill; it is covered by totally separate legislation. It may be, though I very much doubt it, that transport legislation is adequate for the purpose. But even if it were the case that transport legislation was good enough, it would be an intolerable burden to ask those who had responsibility for the treatment of waste to be familiar with two completely separate sets of provisions in order to understand their obligations. I must say to the Government that departmental

1061
responsibilities have led them very badly astray in this connection and that Amendment No. 138 ought to be included in the Bill.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I ask my noble friends to give some serious consideration to this matter. I do not know what the response will be, but I recall that a Select Committee of this place chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, about 12 years ago, dealt with the disposal of toxic waste. I seem to remember—although I have not reread the report —that one of the greatest matters of concern at that time, and one which remains a matter of great concern today, was the transportation of waste. It was found that at that point the whole chain broke down. There were no regulations in force at that time. It may well be that the disposal authority concerned will have to transport such materials. However, this matter will be dealt with later this afternoon in respect of authorities in Wales where the disposal point is, possibly, at least 80 miles.
Therefore, it seems to me that it would not be unreasonable to provide that the transportation of waste of whatever kind and in whatever vehicle, whether it be the concrete-mixer type of vehicle—and that leads on to the argument about whether it is considered to be a vehicle—should come within the ambit of the Bill.
Lord McNair: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained the reasons for this amendment very well. I should just like to add my support to what he said and also the support of all those who sit on these Benches.
Lord Hesketh: These two amendments seek to introduce controls on the transport of waste through a definitional clause which deals with the treatment of waste by mobile plant. The mobile plant is designed to treat or dispose of waste, but it may be moved from site to site or for example from factory to factory, where waste is produced. The factory will still require planning permission to operate a mobile plant. We hope that this measure will facilitate the environmentally friendly management of waste, expecially in its recycling, which may well be most easily carried out by peripatetic means.
This provision is most emphatically not about licensing the transport of waste by local authorities, which is what the amendment seeks to turn it into. The transport of waste is controlled by the same Department of Transport legislation as the transport of any other material. The operator must be licensed under the Transport Acts whatever material he is carrying and the operator licensing system will control the standard of his vehicle and the training of the driver. Regulations cover the transport of dangerous waste in exactly the same way as they cover the transport of any other dangerous material. There is no need to duplicate those requirements in pollution control legislation.
Further, it should not fall to local authorities to operate any vehicle licensing controls. Local authorities have no locus in transport licensing and no experience of it. That is not to denigrate the
1062
authorities in any way; but it must be accepted that the world of transport is very different from the world of licensing waste disposal facilities. As there is already a well-established system of licensing transport undertakings, I can see no reason whatever for setting up a whole new system to duplicate it at local authority level.
The real issue is to ensure that the fly-tippers cannot continue to operate or to find business for their illegal activities. That is the purpose of the duty of care provision contained in Clause 33 which we shall be discussing at a later stage. The registration of waste carriers is provided for in the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, which I discussed at some length with the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, last year. Any carrier who commits a waste-related offence can be removed from the register. It will then be a breach of the duty of care provision for any waste producer or holder to hand over such waste to him. A waste producer who does so will be liable to prosecution. The combined system of duty of care, and the registration of carriers, provides the necessary controls over the people who carry waste. It is for the Department of Transport to control how the waste is carried.
Finally, I think that one also has to look at the two amendments from the view of the Department of Transport and other departments. I say that because essentially the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is asking for a level of supremacy for a cause rather than practical experience in operation. That is the fundamental difference in terms of the carrying out of the operations with the best endeavor by those professionals who are best suited to do so. That is why we resist these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have two problems with that argument. First, perhaps I should point out that I did not in fact speak to Amendment No. 139 because it was spoken to when we dealt with Amendment No. 1 on Tuesday. I was proposing not to move that amendment. The argument put forward in some detail by the noble Lord for his case that the Department of Transport legislation already adequately covers the problems which we have identified, only goes part of the way towards relieving my concerns. I made clear that I was not certain that transport legislation was adequate for the purpose. However, even if I had been certain that it was adequate for the purpose, I would still think that this provision ought to be included in the Bill.
I am confirmed in that view by legislation to which the Minister did not refer; namely, the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 which passed through both Chambers. As noble Lords will recall, that legislation was concerned with fly-tipping. Clearly it would not have gone through without at least the tacit concurrence of the Government, although I know that they were not happy about some aspects of the legislation. Nevertheless, it went through. The Act said that part of the controls to be exercised by the Department of the Environment in order to ensure that we do not have waste material illegally deposited on vacant sites, especially in our

1063
big cities, is that there should be a control over the carriers by way of registration.
If the Government were determined to hold the line against that principle, they ought to have had the courage to oppose the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill when it was before this Chamber. However, they did not do so; they accepted the Bill and then failed to introduce the regulations which would give effect to it. I call that having the worst of both worlds. I call that acknowledging to us the justice of the case which we are now making—because they really cannot go against what was accepted last year at this late stage—and failing to relieve the very legitimate concerns which many noble Lords and many Members of another place, including, especially, my honourable friend Ms. Joan Ruddock who introduced the Bill, felt about the scourge of fly-tipping which affects our cities and particularly our inner cities.
The problem of waste management is one which is primarily the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Those who are engaged in this aspect of waste management, both legitimately and illegitimately, ought to be under the control of a single coherent body of legislation. The Bill does not provide a single and coherent body of legislation. The Government have acknowledged the principle and I fail to understand why they object to its rational extension in the amendment which we have put forward. However, I shall happily give way to the Minister if he has any further information to give us on the matter. Unfortunately, that seems not to be the case.
Lord Hesketh: I have. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh —I hope that the word "insinuated" is not too harsh —insinuated that the Government, having been in receipt of the Act, were not going to do anything about it. The registration of carriers is a government proposal which was taken forward in a Private Member's Bill, as the noble Lord pointed out. Regulations are being prepared and will be consulted upon soon. The Government have no intention of not implementing the Act. As always, there are problems involved in producing the required results. If it requires a little longer to ensure that the regulations work, that is no bad thing. The Government are fully committed to the implementation of the measure, and are not in any way avoiding their responsibilities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In those circumstances, the word "insinuated" was incorrectly used by the Minister. I said nothing about the Government's intention. I said that they had not introduced the regulations, and that is all I said. It has been a long time since the Bill was passed in the last Session. I am not aware that the regulations have even gone out for consultation yet. The passage of time may reflect the detailed and sympathetic thought, but it is much more likely to reflect putting the measure on to the back burner.
The fact that the Minister acknowledges that the Government agree with the principle of the registration of carriers throws away the rest of his case and strengthens our case for including the
1064
transport of waste with the rest of waste management legislation. I seek the opinion of the Committee on this amendment.
4.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 138) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 118.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Blease, L.

B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Milner of Leeds, L.

L.

Molloy, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Congleton, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Diamond, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Ennals, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shannon, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

[Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Varley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alport, L.

Carnock, L.

Arran, E.

Carrington, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Auckland, L.

Chelmer, L.

Balfour, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Beloff, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belstead, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Bessborough, E.

Craigton, L.

Blatch, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Blyth, L.

Cross, V.

Boardman, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Borthwick, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Denham, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Burton, L.

Elibank, L.

Butterworth, L.

Elles, B.

Caccia, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Caithness, E.

Elton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

1065

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norrie, L.

Gibson, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Granchester, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Greenway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Henley, L.

Pearson of Rannock, L.

Hesketh, L.

Porritt, L.

Hives, L.

Quinton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Reay, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Renwick, L.

Ilchester, E.

Rodney, L.

Kinnaird, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Kintore, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lindsay, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Lyell, L.

Sharples, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

Macleod of Borve, B.

L.

Malmesbury, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Margadale, L.

E. [Teller]

Merrivale, L.

Swansea, L.

Milverton, L.

Swinton, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Teviot, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Tranmire, L.

Mountevans, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Munster, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Nelson E.

Wise, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 139 to 141 not moved.]
4.29 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 28, line 44, at end insert:
("(12) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) waste from a mine or quarry which is not excavation waste; and

(b) waste from agricultural premises which is not agricultural material,

shall be treated as industrial waste").
The noble Lord said: As the amendment indicates, we are concerned about gaps which could open up in genuine, sensible and acceptable legislation. It might be of benefit to the Committee if I indicated our feelings. The premise upon which we have put down these amendments is that there could be an improvement in the best interests of the consumer and the public. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 makes provision for dealing with controlled waste. The first matter that the Committee needs to understand is the definition of "controlled waste". It is defined in Clause 30(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 as being,
"household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste".
Subsection (3)(a) states that:
"household waste consists of waste from a private dwelling or residential home or from premises forming part of a university or school or other educational establishment or forming part of a hospital or nursing home".
1066
That is fairly comprehensive and it is easy to understand what is meant by "household waste". Under paragraph (b), industrial waste consists of,
"waste from any factory within the meaning of the Factories Act 1961 and any premises occupied by a body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or any undertaking, excluding waste from any mine or quarry".
I repeat those words,
"excluding waste from any mine or quarry".
Under paragraph (c), commercial waste consists of,
"waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade or business or the purposes of sport, recreation or entertainment excluding … household and industrial waste … waste from any mine or quarry" —
I repeat that, because it is the kernel of our concern—
"waste from any mine or quarry and waste from premises used for agriculture within the meaning of the Agriculture Act 1947, or, in Scotland, the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948; and … waste of any other description prescribed for the purpose of this sub-paragraph".
The Act also provides that, if the Secretary of State considers that controlled waste of any kind is or may be so dangerous or difficult to dispose of that special provision is required, it shall be his duty to make regulations for disposal of such waste. The definition of "controlled waste" which I have read out —and that is what we are discussing in this part of the Act—specifically excludes mine or quarry waste or agricultural waste.
These are probing amendments. The Minister may correct us, but we believe that waste, for example, from a canteen in a quarry or a mine is deemed not to be controlled waste. The waste produced by factory farms is similarly not controlled. Given that the inherent characteristics of such waste have at least equal potential for pollution as have many wastes which are controlled, there is a need to ensure that it falls within legislative powers. The question is which legislative powers will control that kind of waste in those circumstances?
The Environmental Protection Bill perpetuates the lack of control over such waste. While Clause 54 would allow the Secretary of State to give directions imposing requirements in respect of waste of any specified kind, it is clearly not his intention to use this in a global fashion and to apply it, for example, to all non-excavated waste arising from mines or quarries.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the necessary controls of the waste described. If the noble Lord tells us that it can be controlled but not in this way, no one will be more satisfied than myself and those outside. It is clearly nonsense to allow a pile of rotten chicken carcases from agricultural premises to be disposed of on an unlicensed site when the same material from a butcher's shop would require a licence. Is that the position? Can the Minister tell us, if that is the position, the justification for it and what argument there could be against accepting the amendment? It is acknowledged that there may well be need for consideration to be given to waste from agricultural premises that is to be recycled or reused for agricultural purposes.
I hope that the Minister has understood the drift of what I have said. Our attention has been drawn

1067
to this primarily by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which wishes to ensure that the burdens placed upon the users or producers of some wastes are equally carried by others. Not only from the point of view of the cost of providing the service but also because there is a genuine need, it would contribute much to the sadness and distress of the Committee if quite simple illustrations were to be produced and we found that the loophole which we believe we see was not closed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps Members of the Committee would be good enough to turn to page 79 of the Bill, Clause 72(7), describing the meaning of "waste". The provision specifically excludes from "commercial waste" waste from any mine or quarry and so on. I feel that there is a slight conflict of interest on both sides of the Committee over this.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may help the noble Earl. We wonder why there is this exclusion, which is why we have proposed the amendment to place that kind of waste under the control of some form of legislation. It was specifically excluded and I am sure that the Minister will tell us why, as well as why that exclusion is not to the detriment of the consumer.
Lord McNair: The noble Lord has explained fully the reasons for the amendment. I wish to add my support and that of those who sit on these Benches.
Lord Reay: As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has explained, Amendment No. 142 is concerned with waste outside the definition of controlled waste and therefore outside the provisions of this part of the Bill. Wastes are outside these controls at present because they both have control regimes elsewhere. However, the Bill contains in Clause 60 powers to make regulations to bring such wastes under the controls of this part of the Bill if that should prove necessary in the future.
It may be helpful if I briefly outline what are the existing controls in each case. The disposal of wastes from mines and quarries is covered by controls under the Town and Country Planning Acts. The same tier of local government is responsible for granting planning permission for both mineral sites and waste disposal sites. In granting permission for a mine or quarry, the mineral planning authority would wish to be satisfied that appropriate arrangements had been made for the disposal of all types of waste likely to arise. The majority of waste from mines and quarries is inert material from the mine itself. It is quite proper that this should be simply returned to or left in its place of origin under the control of the planning permission and without the need for a waste management licence.
Regarding agricultural waste, disposal is covered by MAFF codes of practice and in most cases it is recycled as a beneficial product on to farm land as part of normal agricultural operations. However, we accept the need for appropriate statutory requirements governing the disposal of materials such as pesticides. The Ministry of Agriculture has already introduced controls in this area and the
1068
Department of the Environment is discussing with the Minister whether any further controls are needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me about factory farms. They would come under or fall within the definition of a factory under the Factories Act and so their waste would be industrial waste. I should also point out that subsection (2) of Clause 60, which carries forward existing provisions of the Control of Pollution Act, provides that it is an offence to dispose of any dangerous type of non-controlled waste in a manner which would be an offence if it were controlled waste. For instance, if waste pesticide were to be illegally dumped that is already an offence under Section 18 of the Control of Pollution Act and will continue to be so under the provisions of this Bill.
It is, however, quite clear that it would not be sensible to require 250,000 farms to be licensed by local authorities for the disposal of the majority of farm wastes, which are quite innocuous. Any further provision that may be needed could be introduced through the regulation-making powers in Clause 60. Such a provision could be much more flexible allowing different types of waste, different types of farm or different types of disposal method to be brought under control. We do not see an advantage in introducing a blanket provision —that would catch many things which do not need to be covered —through an amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister for commenting on the illustrations that I gave. If they are not caught by the definition of controlled waste, they are controlled in some other way and under some other legislation. So far, so good. The Minister will understand that the overwhelming majority of farmers will be sensible and will set the best hygiene standards for their farm and neighbourhood. However, there will still be cases where the disposal of waste is not carried out as it should be. Fly tipping has been referred to.
I am particularly concerned about food as opposed to toxic or poisonous substances. I take the Minister's point that it may be too cumbersome to require hundreds of thousands of little businesses to be licensed in this respect. However, this matter could be dealt with in another way. I shall of course withdraw the amendments and consider the Minister's comments.
The Minister also referred to kinds of waste which are excluded from this measure. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, kindly highlighted the fact that certain kinds of waste are excluded as they are covered by other prohibitions. Perhaps the Minister is telling me that there is no need for the amendments. Many amendments from this side of the Chamber fall because there is no need for them. However, if the Minister is saying there is no need for the amendments he must explain further why there is no need for them. He has already stated that these areas are just as controlled as any other but by some other legislation.
Those people who have asked me to draw this matter to the attention of the Committee will read

1069
what has been said and decide whether the position is satisfactory. We are all motivated by the same desires as regards this Bill. There have been some sad incidents recently in respect of food and hygiene. Therefore we have an opportunity to rectify matters here which we cannot afford to miss. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmontonmoved Amendment No. [43:
Page, 28, line 44, at end insert:
('(12) For the purposes of this Part, waste which is not controlled waste which is disposed of at a licensed facility shall be treated as controlled waste").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 143 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The amendment states:
"For the purposes of this Part, waste which is not controlled waste which is disposed of at a licensed facility shall be treated as controlled waste".
This matter refers to the second part of the question that I posed earlier. The kinds of waste which the Minister said were excluded from the provisions of Clause 72 still have to be disposed of somewhere. They have to be disposed of at a licensed site. The same rigours which are applied to controlled waste need to be applied to waste which is not controlled. The purpose of the amendment is to apply controls on the basis of whether the material is put into the system and could damage the environment rather than on the basis of its origins. The raison d'être for the existing controls on non-controlled waste is based on its origins. We seek to apply a fresh test to non-controlled waste which is based on whether the materials are put into the system and could damage the environment.
The current system of waste disposal licensing is designed to ensure the safe and effective disposal of controlled waste. Any waste which is controlled waste is thus subject to a regime which, in theory, allows for the planning of sufficient facilities to deal with the volume of waste arising in the most appropriate fashion. Therefore sufficient facilities are required to do this but there must also be information about the material which is disposed of at such facilities.
Problems arise where uncontrolled waste is submitted for disposal at a licensed waste site. While it is subject to the requisite charges to meet the cost of disposal, as I understand it, there are no requirements that it should be subject to other controls. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong on that. Such controls would detail the nature of the waste and ideally its origins. By virtue of the fact that the waste is uncontrolled, such information is not only not forthcoming but there is no onus on the handler of the waste who brings it to a site to prove that it is not controlled waste. If what we assert is the case, there is cause for concern. There is thus a loophole in the system which presents waste disposal operators and site operators with the problem of having to accept poorly documented consignments of waste.
1070
An additional problem will arise when the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 comes into force. The provisions of that Act are, inter alia, to set up a system for the registration of carriers of controlled waste. One of the main principles behind this Act is to combat the problems caused by fly tipping, which has already been referred to.
It will be an offence under the Act, when the regulations are produced, for the unregistered carrier to handle controlled waste. The problem which arises with respect to uncontrolled waste is that there is no need for this to be carried by a licensed handler. The Minister may tell us that we have misunderstood the position, but if uncontrolled waste is carried by an unlicensed handler none of the controls covering licensed handlers, such as their bona fides as to their appropriate operating experience, will apply. The amendment seeks to ensure that any waste presented for disposal at a licensed site will be deemed controlled waste whatever its origin and nature. I hope the Minister can reassure us that our concerns are groundless or, if that is not the case, that he will deal with the matter at a later stage.
Lord Renton: This appears to be a purely technical and drafting matter. I wonder whether the noble Lord will look at Clause 72(4) where he will find a definition of controlled waste. Clause 72(4) states:
"'Controlled waste' means household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste".
If the noble Lord wants to amend that definition, as he obviously does—he has referred to the use of that expression in Part I as a whole —may I suggest that it might have been better, instead of inserting the amendment here as a new subsection to Clause 29, to amplify subsection (4) of Clause 72. I want to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say, but for my part I am not certain that the point that the noble Lord has made needs to be dealt with at all.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Like the noble Lord, I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister can say to reassure us. The noble Lord will understand that the definition of controlled waste specifically excludes waste from mines, quarries and agricultural premises. The Minister has satisfied me in part that the disposal of such waste is already covered by the Factories Act and in other ways. However, it is because that waste is excluded from the definition of controlled waste that we are concerned not only about the manner in which it is disposed of but also the manner in which it is carried. In the event of what I consider the double jeopardy of uncontrolled waste being carried by unlicensed carriers, some of the safeguards that are contained in the control element will be missing.
The Minister may tell us that our fears are groundless, in which case I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. After I have done that I shall certainly join with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in seeing whether we can devise a form of words which would strengthen the protection of the consumer without necessarily weakening the provisions of the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: I am very concerned about the amendment. Members of the Committee may not realise why. The first line of the amendment reads:
"For the purposes of this Part, waste which is not controlled waste".
I feel that that subjsection should read: "For the purposes of this Part, waste which is special waste".
I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended. If consideration is to be given to this matter I believe that the proposed subsection (12) should read on these lines: "For the purposes of this Part, waste which is neither controlled waste nor special waste which is disposed of at a licensed facility".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that the noble Earl has misinterpreted the definition of controlled waste. Special waste is a category of controlled waste and one to which special precautions apply. It is not a discrete category from controlled waste.
The Earl of Balfour: Nevertheless, the amendment refers to waste which is not controlled waste.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is because in this amendment we are seeking to secure that waste which goes to a licensed disposal site is covered, whatever it is and whether or not it is controlled. We have specified that waste which is not controlled waste must be considered as controlled waste and treated as such. To introduce the category of special waste into the amendment would be like introducing the categories industrial, commercial or household controlled waste. It would be an irrelevance.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 143 seeks to allow a waste disposal licence to include provision for the control of any non-controlled waste which may be disposed of at a licensed site. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that Clause 34(5), which was introduced in another place, achieves that objective. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall do something that the Minister did not do and read out the words of Clause 34(5), primarily for my own edification:
"Conditions may relate, where waste other than controlled waste is to be treated, kept or disposed of, to the treatment, keeping or disposal of that other waste".
Is the Minister telling me that the words "conditions may relate" would apply to the circumstances that I outlined?
Lord Reay: Yes. My understanding is that what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to achieve is fully covered by the terms of that subsection of Clause 34.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has made a good start. He should keep it up. That is eminently satisfactory to us. I am grateful to him for drawing our attention not only to the words but also to the interpretation of those words in the context of the specific illustration that I gave. I am very grateful to
1072
the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Authorities for purposes of this Part]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 144:
Page 29, leave out lines 3 to 19 and insert:

("(a) for Greater London, the authority constituted as the London Waste Regulation Authority;

(b) for any metropolitan or non-metropolitan county in England, and for any district council in Wales and for any islands or district council in Scotland, the authority constituted as the Waste Regulation Authority, pursuant to an order made by the Secretary of State;

(c) no person shall be a member of an authority established by an order under this subsection unless he is a member of one of the councils for whose areas the authority is established."

and in making any order under this subsection the Secretary of State shall have regard to the boundaries of the existing water and sewerage undertakings within the meaning of the Water Act 1989 and existing patterns of waste arisings and disposals.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 144 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Nathan. My noble friend is unable to be present this afternoon since he is attending a Select Committee, of which he is chairman. I am sure that your Lordships' Committee will appreciate the reason for his absence.
In moving Amendment No. 144 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 257. The purpose of the first three amendments is to seek to establish regional waste regulation authorities. The Committee may recall that the Science and Technology Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee in another place recommended that that should take place. The amendments provide for members of such authorities to be drawn from the local authorities of the areas covered.
The proposal was debated fairly extensively at the Committee and Report stages in another place and received all-party support. At that time the Government indicated that the matter would have to be addressed in the White Paper, to which my noble friend the Minister referred in earlier proceedings on this Bill. He spoke of setting up informal groups for waste regulation. That is referred to at col. 790 of the Commons Official Report of 30th April 1990.
In winding up in your Lordships' House at Second Reading the Minister referred to greater co-operation between the authorities at regional level, both for licensing and the creation of regional strategies for the provision of disposal facilities. (That is reported at col. 582 of Hansard of 18th May 1990). Since, therefore, the principle of regionalisation has been accepted it seems sensible that it should be placed on a statutory basis.
The advantages of doing so would be that the regional authorities would then be of sufficient size and have sufficient authority to employ a full range of inspectors and a full range of technical specialists. It would also bring together all aspects of waste

1073
management and facilitate the adoption of the best practical environmental options for waste disposal. The authorities would also be of a size to establish an effective enforcement agency against any real or robust criminal activity, which is a worry that perhaps underlay the recent amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 are consequential upon Amendment No. 144. Amendment No. 257 is a reserve amendment in that the proposed new clause following Clause 63 would enable the Secretary of State to bring local authorities together for waste regulation purposes.
We are talking—I believe that we shall probably touch on this later today —of a potential of some 150 authorities. It would therefore seem sensible to require them to be drawn together, we suggest, on a regional basis. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Moran: I should like to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put the case clearly and comprehensively: there is not much for me to add.
The essential point is to have waste authorities which are large and efficient enough to do the job effectively. There is one clear and relevant example. When local government in London was reorganised, the London Waste Regulation Authority was set up. It provides a good example of the benefits of the kind of authority that we are discussing. In London there are 55 inspectors, most of them qualified engineers or chemists. It is an organisation of that size and competence that we seek in the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am not happy about these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 144. Clause 30 applies to Scotland. As far as I can see, the provision would certainly not accord with the Scottish provisions. Equally, to leave out subsection (7) as provided for in Amendment No. 146 would be to bring back together the functions of various authorities so admirably separated by the Government and described in Amendment No. 147 to be moved by my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 144 and 257 are familiar. Similar amendments were tabled in another place earlier in the Bill's passage. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 144 and the two minor amendments associated with it, Amendments Nos. 145 and 146. If I understand them correctly, they would have my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment setting up statutory regional waste regulation authorities. That would be a major departure from what we currently have in the Bill and would result in considerable disruption of existing local authorities.
The Government believe that in principle decisions about waste disposal licensing and enforcement should be taken by locally accountable regulation authorities. An earlier suggestion that regulation should be carried out by a national body or by statutory regional authorities was rejected for that reason. However, it has become apparent that
1074
leaving waste regulation with the existing level of local government might cause the authorities some difficulties. Most notably, there is the problem of the lack of expert staff—a problem which, as we discussed on Tuesday, exists throughout the waste industry and which, it is argued, will only be exacerbated by the new range of powers and duties given to regulation authorities in the Bill.
In addition, there is a desire to implement a more strategic approach to waste disposal planning and regulation. Key aims of the strategic approach are greater consistency of standards across local authority boundaries and the desire to implement a policy of regional self-sufficiency in waste disposal. There were lengthy discussions in another place about regional waste regulation authorities. At that time my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside signalled his willingness to explore the scope for voluntary regional authorities.
The Government fully accept the need for enhanced regional co-operation and co-ordination of effort and resources. That is the best way for standards to be raised and to be made more consistent. To encourage that co-operation, officials have already held a meeting with the local authority associations to discuss the way forward and another meeting is to be held with elected representatives of the associations later this month. I stress again that our preferred option would be for voluntary joint committees to be set up by the authorities themselves, with help and guidance as necessary from central government. That retains the element of local accountability which is vital in decisions about waste disposal and which understandably raises considerable local concerns. It also makes the best use of scarce staff resources.
Amendment No. 257 is closer to our thinking. I trust that my noble friend will understand that I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the meeting to which I referred by accepting this amendment now. However, the Government do not have a closed mind on the issue and may consider taking a reserve power along the lines of Amendment No. 257 if satisfactory voluntary arrangements cannot be made. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation. Although the noble Lord, Lord Moran, gave his unstinting support to the proposal, I feel sure that he will also accept what my noble friend said.
There is danger of spreading a scarce resource too thinly across the country. I have some doubt as to the efficiency of voluntary arrangements but, like my noble friend the Minister, I would certainly not wish, by anything I say or do this afternoon, to cast any shadow across the meetings that will take place. I note that my noble friend the Minister said that the Government do not have a closed mind on the matter. Presumably, as he did not refer to it in his answer, the White Paper, which we understand is to be published in September or October, may contain some further governmental thinking on the issue. That would give us ample time in which to pursue

1075
the principle embodied in Amendment No. 257 before the passage of the Bill is completed in this Session. I believe that that understanding is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amndment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 not moved.]
Lord Heskethmoved Amendment No. 147:
Page 30, line 31, leave out from second ("authority") to end of line 35 and insert:
("(a) to make administrative arrangements for keeping its functions as a waste regulation authority separate from its functions as a waste disposal authority; and
(b) to submit details of the arrangements which it has made to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may give to an authority to which subsection (7) above applies directions as to the arrangements which it is to make for the purpose of keeping its functions as a waste regulation authority separate from its functions as a waste disposal authority; and it shall be the duty of the authority to give effect to the directions").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 147, in my name, is a small but important amendment. It clarifies the requirement that local authorities separate the functions of waste regulation from their new client role as waste disposal authority.
It is vital that that separation of functions is not only made, but is clearly seen to be made. For too long, authorities have suffered from the real or perceived conflict of interest between their role as disposer of waste and their role as regulator. Simply transferring local authority disposal operations to arm's length companies is not enough to avoid continued allegations that that conflict of interest remains. Our intention is in no way to impugn local authorities which have two key but distinctive functions. Instead, we aim for and must achieve a situation in which the authorities are above suspicion of a clash of interests between their role as regulator seeking the highest possible standards, and as the disposal authority looking also for value for money.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be empowered not only to examine the administrative arrangements made by the authorities, but also to direct them to make different arrangements where he is not satisfied that the adequate separation of functions exists. We believe that that is the very least that the public expects to see. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have no complaint with the objective of the amendment. What worries me about it is the provision whereby individual local authorities shall submit to the Secretary of State details of the administrative arrangements that they make, and the Secretary of State shall give directions to individual local authorities. The thought of that happening throughout the country without any general rules being set by the Secretary of State as to what the administrative arrangements should be fills me with dismay.
I am bound to say that it means that in effect the Secretary of State is second guessing the local authorities, who have an interest themselves in
1076
keeping their regulatory functions away from their disposal functions. Of course they do. Surely it would be better to use such a power only as a last resort, and for the Secretary of State to state in general terms what arrangements he would consider satisfactory so that he only has to intervene with the local authority as a very last resort if there is no assurance given that the principles have been adhered to.
Lord Hesketh: I think it is fair to say, first, that guidance will be given before any directions are issued. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, used the words "last resort". The purpose of this amendment is to provide the backstop, which, if it did not apply to a local authority, I am sure the noble Lord would have accepted with glee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is unfair and unreasonable. I do not treat local authorities separately from any of the other bodies that have to deal with government. I am simply suggesting for the sake of better administration, both of central government and of local government, that there should be general guidance given, first, so that there can be exception management in cases where something is absolutely necessary —as I said, as a last resort. The Minister acknowledged that to some extent in his reply. What he has not done is to say how it is achieved by the amendment.
If the Minister will say to me that he is willing to discuss the directions that should be given between now and a later stage, then by all means let us let this amendment go. However, it would be in his interests, as well as in the interests of local authorities, to minimise the role of direction between the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State and individual local authorities and to maximise the extent to which the Secretary of State makes up his mind what he wants and makes it clear to local authorities as a whole, then only exceptions would have to be dealt with. I should have thought that that was the minimum of good management.
Lord Hesketh: In reply for the second time to the noble Lord, I shall again take his words and point out that we are committed to providing the guidance in order that the Secretary of State's role is absolutely minimised to the minimal position.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Transition to waste disposal companies etc.]:
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Lord Reaymoved Amendments Nos. 148A to 148C:
Page 32, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (9A) below").
Page 32, line 5, at end insert:
("(9A) Subsection (9) above shall not apply in the case of a company which a waste disposal authority has formed or participated in forming in pursuance of subsection (2)(a) above until after the vesting date for that company.").
Page 32, line 13, leave out ("has") and insert ("and "vesting date" have").

1077
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hesketh exempts local authority companies from the requirement that they be run at arm's length until after their vesting date. This is an important measure of flexibility as it will allow authorities and their companies to decide when to resolve that their company should be run at arm's length. It is important that, prior to vesting, companies should not be subject to the additional conditions applied to arm's length companies under Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I beg to move.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Waste Disposal Authorities and Companies]:
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran)moved Amendment No. 149A:
Page 147, line 49, after ("treatment") insert (", keeping")
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I wish to move Amendment No. 149A and speak to Amendments Nos. 153ZA and 153ZB. While Amendment No. 149A is a minor drafting amendment, Amendments Nos. 153ZA and 153ZB provide flexibility for the Secretary of State to give approval to certain restrictions on the transfer of securities in LAWDCs; for example, to permit employee share schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Laytonmoved Amendment No. 149B:
Page 150, line 17, leave out ("undue").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple point. We are talking here about discrimination and the Bill talks about "undue discrimination". This rather gives the nod to allowing discrimination. I speak from experience. Allowing discretionary powers of that sort can lead to a great many problems. I suggest leaving out the word "undue" and just sticking with the idea of no discrimination at all. That would be a much better idea. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 149B seeks to delete the word "undue" from paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. I can understand the wish of my noble friend Lord Layton to ensure that there should be no discrimination when contracts are being drawn up, and I share that wish. However, I can reassure him that the word "undue" is justified in this context as it will allow authorities to choose one particular contractor on the basis of their tender for the work.
Authorities must, by definition, show some discrimination when choosing one contractor or another. The term "undue" makes clear that the discrimination should be on the grounds of environmental factors and value for money. It in no way implies that authorities may favour their own LAWDCs or any other company. I trust that these reassurances will prevent my noble friend from forcing his amendment.
Lord Layton: I accept the assurances, but I still think at this point that it would be better to use the word "discrimination" than "undue discrimination". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerranmoved Amendment No. 150:
Page 150, line 18, at end insert:
("This paragraph shall not be construed as limiting the duty of a waste disposal authority under paragraph 18(1).").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 150, and with the leave of the Committee speak to Amendments Nos. 151 and 153, all three being in my name. The amendments are directed to Part II of Schedule 2 to be found on page 150 of the Bill. It is intituled:
"Provisions Regulating Waste Disposal Authorities and Companies".
There is a subtitle to Part II:
"Terms of waste disposal contracts".
Great concern has often been expressed that, while it is a quite proper requirement that treatment of waste disposal should be put out to tender, this may result in the waste disposal authorities, with at present, as is well known, few qualified staff—and even the current staff may be diluted by the necessary separation of regulation and disposal of waste —accepting rather uncritically the lowest price, which would perhaps be natural in certain circumstances, particularly in face of the strongly organised lobby pressing for the adoption of landfill as the disposal method of choice.
I should say that I am advised in this matter by Professor Peter Isaac, a chartered civil engineer, who was a specialist adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which reported on hazardous waste disposal of 1980–81 under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson. This becomes a serious administrative matter. As I have said, there is a strong lobby in Britain in favour of landfill as the disposal method of choice. But while landfill operations can be satisfactory if skilfully operated, the proportion of waste being deposited on land in this country is far greater than in the other EC countries. The trend is running against landfill operations. That is to be found in the passages in the EC Directive No. SEC/89/934, entitled A Community Strategy for Waste Management.
The Committee will be fully aware that there is considerable public pressure at present to improve this country's protection of the environment. However, changing the pattern of a large and important activity such as waste disposal will no doubt take some considerable time. Therefore in my submission we should not delay initiating that change. For that reason we believe that the Bill must place requirements on waste disposal authorities to prevent their acceptance of the lowest tender in all cases without having given thought to the necessity of minimising the environmental impact of outdated disposal methods such as landfill.

1079
I now refer to the specific amendments that I propose. Amendment No. 150 is directed to paragraph 17 of Part II of Schedule 2. Paragraph 17 states:
"A waste disposal authority shall, in determining the terms and conditions of any contract which the authority proposes to enter into for the keeping, treatment or disposal of waste, so frame the terms and conditions as to avoid undue discrimination in favour of one description of waste disposal contractor as against other descriptions of waste disposal contractors".
Those are somewhat curious general words. My amendment proposes to add to the end of that general statement that paragraph 17,
"shall not be construed as limiting the duty of a waste disposal authority under paragraph 18(1)".
I now refer to paragraph 18 in the schedule. It deals with the provisions relating to waste disposal authorities and companies. Paragraph 18 begins with the general words,
"A waste disposal authority shall have regard to the desirability of including in any contract".
I need not read the remainder of the paragraph because my amendment is directed towards making the initial words of the paragraph more specific. Amendment No. 151 proposes that instead of stating that,
"A waste disposal authority shall have regard to the desirability of including in any contract",
paragraph 18 should state:
"shall include in any contract".
That gets rid of the general words,
"have regard to the desirability of including".
My third amendment relates to paragraph 20 of Part II of Schedule 2. It is quite clear that there will always be a tendency for the officers in the authorities quite naturally to go for the lowest tender. The objective of Amendment No. 153 is to put into the Bill that the authority shall have critical regard to the nature of the waste and to methods other than landfill for the purposes of disposal of that waste.
Accordingly Amendment No. 153 proposes to insert a further clause. New paragraph 20A states:
"A waste disposal authority, in taking any of the following decisions, namely—

(a) who to invite to tender for the contract under paragraph 19(4)(a) above, and

(b) who to enter into contract with,

shall have regard" —
and these are the essential words —
"to the experience of any waste disposal contractor tendering for the contract, and to his proved ability to satisfy the terms or conditions laid down under paragraph 18(1) above",
to which I have referred.
It is therefore a precautionary set of amendments. The amendments draw to the attention of authorities that there may be special methods of disposal in relation to certain waste which will be more effective in preserving the environment. The amendments in effect warn the authorities that they should not necessarily go for the cheapest method of disposal —that is by landfill —because in many cases landfill in the long term proves very unsatisfactory for the environment.
To sum up, it is accepted that properly controlled landfill will still play an important part in any waste
1080
disposal strategy. The amendments are directed towards ensuring long-term protection of the environment which may not be satisfied by landfill. Therefore treatment and pre-treatment options increasingly better known and more effective than landfill for waste disposal must be given proper consideration at all stages. They may be more expensive in the short term but they become more expensive in the long term in certain circumstances because of the unsatisfactory nature of landfill.
This attitude is in strict conformity with the increasing stringency of EC directives in this field, one of which I referred to earlier. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I was under the possibly mistaken impression that the amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 152 on which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was going to illuminate the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I asked for it not to be so grouped. I have not seen the final version of the groupings. I apologise. I thought that I had arranged for it to be taken out of the group.
Lord Hesketh: It is on the list that I have.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg the Committee's pardon. It was my intention to give instructions not to include it in that group. I hope that the Minister will allow Amendment No. 152 to be taken separately.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I had understood that that was the position. I therefore did not refer to Amendment No. 152 although it was grouped with the three amendments to which I have spoken.
Lord Hesketh: I accept full responsibility for that and issue a small proportion of blame to whatever word processor produced the sheet that I have.
I have nothing in principle against Amendment No. 150. However, I resist it on the ground that it does not add to the Bill. There are no circumstances in which the provisions of paragraph 17 would be construed as limiting the duty of a waste disposal authority under paragraph 18(1). We believe that the two matters are completely separate. Paragraph 17 merely seeks to prevent a disposal authority from offering contracts which restrict or distort competition —for example, by offering a contract which may favour its own LAWDC. The duty in paragraph 18(1) is to consider ways of minimising pollution and maximising recycling. The duty will not be affected in any way by the terms of paragraph 17.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that the effect of the word "undue" which is first retained in paragraph 17 means that a waste disposal authority may discriminate in favour of those contractors who offer recycling and the best environmental option for disposing of waste. That discrimination in favour of such contractors would therefore be due discrimination permitted by paragraph 17.

1081
I can sympathise with the intention of Amendment No. 151 which seeks to strengthen the recycling provisions of the Bill but I am convinced that the current balance is right. The Bill already requires disposal authorities to have regard to the potential for recycling, waste minimisation and the prevention of pollution. The extent to which those considerations can be included in contracts is properly a matter for the relevant locally accountable disposal authority rather than for central government. The Bill as drafted gives disposal authorities the necessary autonomy and flexibility to draw up contracts which will suit their particular circumstances.
Amendment No. 153 would require disposal authorities to take into account the experience of the contractor when awarding contracts. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that under the new licensing regime account will be taken of the contractor's previous record including prosecutions by regulation authorities, competence and financial backing. Disposal authorities will be able to let contracts only to licensed contractors who will already have been closely scrutinised. Disposal authorities should then satisfy themselves that their preferred option is both environmentally acceptable and offers value for money.
The amendment may also have the unfortunate side effect of discouraging authorities from awarding contracts to new firms which may, technically and financially, be equipped to carry out the contract. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by my response to his three amendments and that he will see fit to withdraw them.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for his expression of sympathy in regard to the basis of my two amendments, Amendments Nos. 150 and 151. I have some sympathy with his sympathy having regard to his position in relation with those amendments. I do not at this stage propose to press Amendments Nos. 150 and 151.
I am in some difficulty about Amendment No. 153. I did not quite understand the Minister's reply. He said that the points raised in Amendment No. 153 would be covered by licensing arrangements. I am not sure what licensing arrangements he has in mind. The object of Amendment No. 153 is to draw the attention of the waste disposal authority to the various methods of waste disposal depending upon the circumstances of the waste and the territory with which it is concerned.
I shall read what the Minister has said, take the advice of Professor Isaac and, if necessary, come back to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdraw.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 151, line 2, at end insert:
1082
("(2A) In seeking to let any contract, the authority shall have regard to the environmental consequences of activities under the proposed specification, including any benefits arising from the incineration of waste").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Those who follow these matters closely and those who have listened to the excellent exposition of this part of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will find that the issue of incineration causes some heat —not just in this place but elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, explained soundly and fully why it is very important that in some way or another there should be no dubiety with regard to the people who will operate the waste disposal facilities, what they will use to dispose of the waste and, in the context of protection of the environment, what the impact on the environment will be when different methods are used.
This is a probing amendment. It allows the Government to give their views to this Chamber and those outside it on the question of incineration of certain wastes. It is acknowledged that paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 allows a waste disposal authority to have regard to the desirability of including in any contract that the authority proposes to enter into, for the keeping, treatment or disposal of waste, terms or conditions designed, among other things, to minimise pollution. That is the basis on which we have brought forward this amendment: the methods whereby pollution can be minimised.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that specific consideration of the benefits or disbenefits of incineration are taken into account when such decisions are made. I hope that the Minister will not say that in the generality of things that surely will be taken into account. Sadly, an assumption that people will pay due regard to the consequences of doing one thing or another is not always confirmed in relation to many things that happen.
It is recognised that for certain wastes, disposal by incineration is the best practical environmental option. In particular, many special wastes require high temperature incineration. It is generally agreed that that is the appropriate disposal route for clinical wastes. In Edmonton there is an excellent facility, pioneered by the Greater London Council, which offers a very good synthesis of both those factors. Adjacent to the Edmonton incinerator is the North Middlesex Hospital. That enables me to point to the careful way in which the disposal of clinical waste needs to be handled and how absolutely crucial is the incineration process. I have visited the site more than once. I am satisfied with the quality of the work that takes place there; I am convinced that it is absolutely imperative for that kind of facility to be made available.
There is a good argument for considering incineration among the range of disposal options that may occur as a result of the tendering process. However, there are other issues associated with incineration which need to be taken into account. I am advised by the AMA that the current position in the United Kingdom with regard to municipal waste incineration is that of the existing 35 or so municipal waste incinerators most will be time-expired (that

1083
is, they will have come to the end of their useful life) by the turn of the century. Even before that time, new proposals emanating from the European Community, with which most of us agree, will place stringent emission requirements upon such incinerators.
The effect will be that only a handful of incinerators are likely still to be in operation by the end of the century. So far as concerns the United Kingdom, it would seem therefore that incineration of domestic waste will no longer be an available option. The main reason for incinerators being closed down rather than equipment being installed to meet the new emission standards is economic rather than practical. Certainly, the standard could be met but the cost of installing abatement equipment would be so high that it could not be recouped from charges for incineration over the remaining life of the plant. There are no political or partisan points here. These are facts of life which must be taken into account.
Aside from high temperature incineration, which is the preferred disposal option for certain wastes, there is need to give consideration to the energy recovery potential that is possible from such plants. We expect the Minister to deal in part with the energy dividend that is available from an incineration process. In practice this may come from using the heat generated from the combustion process to generate power, as in the case of the incinerator at Edmonton, or there is the possibility of operating a district heating scheme, as is the case at Sheffield. The value of the power generated or heat produced when offset against the operating costs and construction work may make those plants economically viable.
That is the case we make. When going out to tender one needs to include in the factors that are borne in mind the consequences of incineration. Several schemes for new combustion engines at plants with associated energy recovery schemes have been put forward. They have been designed to take advantage of recent proposals by the Department of Energy under its commitment to achieve a proportion of the UK's power generation from non-fossil fuel or renewable energy resources. The scheme provides a guaranteed value for the energy produced that is considerably higher than the price paid by electricity boards for energy currently generated in that fashion. Unfortunately, the recent decision that the period during which prices are guaranteed should be drastically reduced has affected the viability of various schemes.
I hope that the Minister has a persuasive brief. I believe that the Bill can be improved if he takes on board two points: first, that incineration per se in certain circumstances is not only the best but should be the only means of disposing of certain waste; and secondly, that an opportunity is afforded to put into practice not only the Government's desire but the whole world's desire to use and conserve energy in the best possible way. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 152 would require waste disposal authorities to have regard to the environmental consequences of the terms of contract
1084
which it enters into. The Bill already contains such a regard and goes even further. Paragraph 18(1) requires authorities to consider the maximisation of recycling as well as the minimisation of pollution of the environment.
It is important to remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that authorities are not required to take the lowest cost tender. Incineration may well be more expensive than landfill but may give the environmental benefits such as heat, power and energy recovery to which he referred. Authorities will not be prohibited from choosing incineration where the environmental benefits can be demonstrated. Therefore, I believe that the point raised by the noble Lord is covered and that in some ways we have anticipated it. I hope that he is satisfied with my explanation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. He said that authorities would not be "prohibited". However, we wish to see positive encouragement. I believe that there is discouragement of incineration not least because of the capital cost of the equipment. I should like the Minister to say more. I used the illustration of the North Middlesex Hospital. However, in many trade processes it is essential that waste be disposed of by incineration. Also, in the context of the Government's proposals, there is a need to conserve energy.
Can the Minister not say something helpful? I do not intend to press the amendment. However, he said that pollution should be considered. The amendment specifically relates to incineration as a means of dealing with pollution. Can the Minister say something more about incineration as a means of disposal? It is not merely something that should be borne in mind by those who wish to use it. We believe that it has a possible benefit.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I fear that I shall not be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in the way he wishes. In an earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I pointed out that we do not wish to exempt those who have ideas or concepts by the interpretation of the word "undue" as regards his amendments. If we start trying to put every form of anticipated technology on the face of the Bill, there will be a great deal of extra paperwork.
We have demonstrated the importance we attach to the commitment which does not remove incineration on a fiscal basis. I have made that absolutely clear in terms of the basis upon which an authority can contract from an environmental point of view. I fully appreciate the points made by the noble Lord. At the same time, we wish to provide authorities with the opportunity to make an assessment at their level rather than stipulating on every occasion from the Department of the Environment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Is the Minister saying that he has no view one way or the other as to whether incineration as a means of disposal for certain wastes is good or bad? If seems to me that

1085
the Minister is vacillating and sitting on the fence. He wants authorities to dispose of waste in any way they can. We are saying that if the best means of such disposal is by incineration then there should be encouragement to do that. I am disappointed in the Minister's reply. I do not know whether those outside the Committee will be satisfied with his response.I remain to be convinced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 153ZA and 153ZB:
Page 151. line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below,").
Page 152, line 10, at end insert:
("(3) No provision shall be void by reason of its operating as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above if the Secretary of State has given his approval in writing to that provision.")
On Question, Whether Schedule 2, as amended, shall be the second Schedule to the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise for raising this matter on the Question that Schedule 2 be the second schedule to the Bill. However, recently, I have teen informed that the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors is proposing to make what sounds like a very welcome grant to the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board. I have given as much notice as possible to the Government and I understand that there may be a response to my questions.
This matter fits properly into Schedule 2 because it is concerned with the regulations governing waste disposal contractors. I wish to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board is adequately financed and whether they are aware of the grant of £120,000 to the council which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Gregson. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord should answer now but I should like to know whether the Government are willing to give a sympathetic ear to the suggestion made by the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors that they should match the association's grant of £ 120,000, preferably on a pound-for-pound basis.
Lord Hesketh: The Government support WAMITAB. We shall be considering sympathetically its request for financial support. We shall be meeting its representative soon. I very much welcome the support announced by the NAWDC and I hope that every other body concerned with waste will join in its endeavours.
WAMITAB has looked for a system of training and qualifications for waste managers, and we support that. We stand ready to give such qualifications statutory approval under Clause 71. It is intended that the possession of a WAMITAB qualification will be necessary evidence of fitness to hold a waste management licence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. I have no intention of dividing the Committee on the matter.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Prohibition on unauthorised deposit, treatment or disposal etc. of waste]:
Lord Reaymoved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 32, line 22, at end insert (", or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be treated. kept or disposed of,").
The noble Lord said: It is interesting to note that at least three great minds think alike, although the duplication of the three amendments owes something to the environmental lawyers' association. We are at one in wishing to avoid the provision of the Control of Pollution Act being diluted and therefore wish to reinstate the provision that to,
"knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be treated, kept or disposed of",
illegally will also be an offence, as it is now. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Great minds do think alike, but not identically. I thought the noble Lord would comment on the fact that his amendment refers to controlled waste, whereas the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Layton and myself refers to waste in general. In view of the earlier debate on that kind of waste, which can be damaging—for example, non-agricultural waste from agricultural establishments and non-mining waste from mines and quarries —and the fact that such waste is excluded, will the Minister give some consideration to whether or not the word "controlled" should appear in his amendment?
Lord Reay: I understand that Part II of the Bill deals with controlled waste.
[Amendment No. 153B not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newportmoved Amendment No. 154:
Page 32, line 44, at end insert:
(" (d) any non-contaminated non-ferrous metal intended for further use").
The noble Lord said: I apologise that my noble friend Lord Ezra unfortunately cannot be present because he has an engagement in Brussels which he is unable to break. I move the amendment in his name and apologise that he cannot be here, although he referred to this question in his Second Reading speech.
Clause 32(4) deals with the exclusion from controls imposed by waste management licences. This plea deserves some consideration from the Government. The amendment is potentially of great significance. It is designed to recognise and safeguard the position of one of our most important recycling industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke at Second Reading of the concerns of the British Secondary Metals Association, which represents 375 firms engaged in the recycling of non-ferrous metal that

1087
might otherwise go to waste. Unfortunately on that occasion the Minister was unable to provide any assurance on how the Government might respond to those concerns. I hope that the Minister in his response today will be rather more forthcoming.
I shall not repeat all the positive points about the industry to which my noble friend Lord Ezra previously referred. Suffice it to say that recycling of metals by BSMA members saves this country a burden of £1.6 billion a year on balance of payments. I am sure other Members of the Committee will agree that that is very important to the economy of this country.
The amendment excludes non-contaminated non-ferrous metal intended for further use from the full exigencies of the waste management regime. The Government are not prepared to consider any alteration to the definition of "waste". It is wrong to classify recycling and reclamation activity within the definition of waste. The material recycled by the secondary metals industry—copper, brass, lead, zinc, tin and nickel —is self-evidently not waste. It is secondary raw material of enormous value to our industry and our economy. It is regrettable that the Government did not acknowledge that in the Bill.
I do not wish to detain the Committee with a discussion on the legal definition of waste, but I ask it to support the proposition that the recycling of non-contaminated secondary metal should be exempt from an unnecessarily rigorous and inappropriate licensing regime. It may be asked why the exemption should be granted and how the licensing regime proposed could harm the industry. It was said by the Government in another place that no new controls are imposed by the Bill. In terms of powers available to local authorities that may be true, but it is only during the past few months that some local authorities have begun to use the powers given to them under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in order to impose licensing restraints on recycling sites. The Bill reinforces those powers and seeks their general use.
Already the metal recycling industry has faced demands to deposit in town halls commercially confidential information and sensitive security details; for example, demands for diagrams showing where precious materials are stored, which would be of enormous help to would-be criminals. Conditions have been imposed on the storage of non-toxic material that show complete ignorance of the needs of the industry. The amount of form filling and interference has grown. Firms have even been asked to produce lists of their suppliers —information which clearly is crucial to the commercial future of the undertaking.
Not only is the licensing process threatened, but evidence of clear inconsistency in the treatment of firms in the industry has emerged between different licensing authorities. That is bad for competition and for confidence in the recycling industry.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. If not, I ask him to make clear to the Committee that he will issue clear guidelines to licensing authorities on how the regime should be
1088
applied consistently to the metal recycling sector. I urge him to ask local authorities not to pursue the licensing process until guidelines under the Bill are issued. I also ask him to accept the offer made to his department, and to take the technical advice of the Secondary Metals Association on board when framing such guidelines.
The wording of the amendment is derived from the recitals to the European Commission's draft directive on the movement of waste. In that preamble the Commission acknowledges that the current EC regime causes,
"certain difficulties relating in particular to the scope of the Directive and the treatment of non-ferrous metal waste".
It states that those difficulties need to be remedied. It also suggests that,
"less stringent rules may be applied to waste which is to be further used".
Again taking issue with the description of recycled material as waste and acknowledging that the directive deals with material in transit and not on site, I submit that at a time when the Commission is recognising the case for the special treatment of recycling, and specifically of non-ferrous metal, the UK Government should not fall out of line. I urge the Committee to support the amendment, which will relieve a vital strategic recycling sector from an unnecessary burden of public sector intervention and detailed local authority control. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, that the Government are very much aware of the need to protect and stimulate the recycling industry. It is not our intention to regulate for the sake of regulation. But we must also be sure that any operations involving waste are not a threat to the environment. Many operations involving the recovery of scrap metal can present such a threat; for example, through the breaking of equipment. It must also not be possible for the unscrupulous to avoid legitimate controls by describing waste as destined for recycling when they have no intention of recycling it. Such a loophole would result in an increase in fly-tipping of scrap metal, for it is obvious to anyone who travels the roads or railways that waste scrap metal adorns many a public place where it has no business to be.
The noble Lord's amendment seeks to add a fourth category to those in subsection (4) to which the Secretary of State shall have regard in deciding whether to exempt particular activities from the licensing requirements of that section. The criteria already in the subsection allow the Secretary of State to exempt where there is no threat to the environment; and, as has been repeatedly said in another place, if the scrap metal industry can demonstrate that any of its operations do not present a threat to the environment we shall be happy to consider its case for exemption. But we cannot agree to a blanket exemption, set in statute, for a whole category of activities, many of which most certainly have the potential for pollution. We must therefore resist the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I repeat my former remark that it

1089
would be helpful if he could meet members of the Secondary Metals Association when framing guidelines. He said that in certain circumstances he was prepared to exempt where sites were suitably stationed or positioned and where there was no threat to the environment. Perhaps that may go into the guidelines. Is it possible for the Minister to see these people so that he can get it right?
Lord Hesketh: It is fair to say that one of the great advantages of the new policy is the basis of flexibility. We are, of course, willing to consult on a broad basis and, if the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Ross, refers are desirous of discussions, they can be facilitated.
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to the noble Lord. That is a generous offer and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 33 [Duty of care etc. as respects waste]:
Lord Ross of Newportmoved Amendment No. 155:
Page 33, line 35, after ("imports") insert ("exports").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 159, which also appears in my name on the Marshalled List. This amendment deals with the export of waste and endeavours to ensure that waste is exported only to people who are competent to deal with it and who can be trusted.
At present there is no duty to ensure that waste is exported only to people who know how to handle it safely and who will ensure that it is dealt with properly. This amendment puts such a duty on the exporter. The code of practice could, for example, say that the person to whom the waste is exported must be qualified in accordance with the laws of the country to which it is going and require the exporter to check this with the relevant authority in that country. If no qualifications are required in the country concerned then the export should not be permitted.
The amendment refers to the duty of care and is therefore more properly made here than in Clause 117, which provides only for the making of regulations about the export of waste.
We all know of examples where waste has been dumped. For example, that happened on the west coast or Africa. In that case, as a result of the fuss that was made, the waste was actually brought back to Italy. Dumping has been going on and we must put a stop to it. This matter was debated in Committee in the other place and the amendment has been drafted in the light of what the Minister said there. I hope that it appeals to the Minister now. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This clause is probably the most important in Part II of the Bill. It represents the
1090
greatest single advance in waste management since the 1974 Control of Pollution Act. So, before I turn to the place of these amendments in the scheme of things, I should like to say a few words about the duty of care itself.
First, let me pay tribute to the preparatory work of many who have paved the way for the duty of care. If it is not invidious, I should like to single out the pioneering work of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, who first put forward the duty as a recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. Since 1985 the Government have been committed to the proposal and this clause represents the culmination of years of consultation and preparation.
The duty that your Lordships have before you therefore merits careful understanding. What we have is a statutory duty on a considerable list of persons, covering every stage of the waste chain from production to disposal. Each of them must discharge the duty by taking steps applicable to them in their capacity connected with the waste; as producer, carrier or whatever. Those steps need only be what is reasonable in the circumstances.
More specifically, those steps must be directed to secure certain aims. The aims are several. The first is preventing the escape of waste from their own control or from that of another person; that means wrapping, containing and securing the waste. Then there is handing on the waste only to an authorised person; that is, an authority, a disposer or a carrier with any necessary authorisations. Then there is providing a written description of the waste, what it is and any special points to watch on it. Finally—though first in the list in subsection (1)—there is a catch-all aim of preventing anyone else dealing with the waste in an illegal manner.
That is a very comprehensive duty. The interpretation of what steps are reasonable will be supported by a code of practice that we have published in draft for consultation. Breach of the duty will be a criminal offence.
We shall be exploring a number of detailed aspects of the duty in debates on amendments but let me impress upon the Committee what a big step forward the duty is. Until now, all the weight of regulation and enforcement has pressed solely upon the disposer of waste. No longer. Waste will now be the legal concern of every person who controls it at any stage.
That brings me to Amendments Nos. 155 and 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I share the concern of Members that the list of persons subject to the duty should indeed be comprehensive. Noble Lords wish to ensure that waste destined for export is as closely subject to the duty of care as any other. I hope to be able to demonstrate that, so far as the limits of UK jurisprudence extend, this is so.
These amendments aim to add exporters to the list of those who have to abide by the duty of care. However, exporters are already covered by the duty of care. While the waste is still the responsibility of anyone in Great Britain it must be in the charge of someone who is producing it, carrying it or keeping it, and all these persons are subject to the duty.

1091
Of course, the impact of the duty of care is by no means the only control on the export of waste. The subject of trade in waste has its own clause: Clause 131 in Part VIII of the Bill. Under that clause the Secretary of State will have power to control or even stop exports of waste for the purposes of preventing pollution of the environment or harm to human health. Armed with these powers, my right honourable friend has every intention of implementing as responsible a policy on the export of waste as any Member opposite could wish.
We fully recognise that special consideration is due to the countries of the developing world, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. It is our firm belief that there is no excuse for any waste to be exported from an industrialised country to the third world for treatment or disposal. I would go further. In seeking to minimise international waste movements we must not allow narrow nationalism to deny third world countries access to high technology and high standard disposal methods. That means that we must be prepared to accept some consignments of waste from developing countries for treatment and disposal here. This combination of responsible policies is one on which we have a wide measure of agreement with our European partners, and I commend it to the Committee. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, will find my reply a satisfactory response to his amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: That was a very full answer and I am grateful for it but I am not entirely sure that it covers the situation of countries to where the waste is being exported; in other words, that we make sure that the people receiving waste are similarly qualified to deal with it in a proper manner. However, I will study the Minister's reply and I hope that I shall find it totally reassuring. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 156:
Page 33, line 38, at end insert ("having regard to the possibility of resultant pollution").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I thank the Minister for his exposition of the significance of Clause 33 and I join in his tribute to my noble friend Lord Gregson perhaps not for inventing the concept of the duty of care but certainly for bringing it before the attention of government and the public in an extremely effective way.
Amendment No. 156 is a simple amendment. It is designed to bring into the concept of the duty of care something comparable to the precautionary principle which has been adopted by government in their attitude toward global pollution. The clause as that it should cover probable pollution and we propose that it should cover the possibility of pollution. In other words,
"a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment",
is normally defined in dictionaries as offering a reasonable prospect of such and such a thing
1092
happening, and that is not really precautionary enough. The clause ought to cover possible pollution.
The principle that I suggest we adopt is that nothing should be allowed unless we are much more sure that it is harmless than is at present the case. Certainly we should not allow it unless we are sure it is harmless. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise briefly to support this amendment. It is sensible to have regard to anything that could happen when dealing with pollution problems. To bring in the possible as well as the probable is surely the best way of doing that.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 156 would require the subjects of the duty of care to have regard to the possibility of pollution or take steps while they are discharging their duty.
I feel that this amendment is not entirely necessary. The entire structure of the clause—indeed of the whole of Part II of the Bill —has regard to the minimisation of pollution and the control of waste at all stages. The duty of care will ensure that all producers and holders of waste do not manage their waste illegally and also that they stop others managing it illegally at the same time. The intention behind the duty of care is to ensure that waste is not illegally managed along the chain from the producer right through to the disposer. Taking a simple example of how the duty of care will work, a producer will hand his waste to a registered carrier. Once he has checked that the person is registered, he will then hand the waste to a licensed site. At this final stage the conditions in the licence take over. Licences will have conditions attached to them which ensure that pollution is prevented. There is also a provision in this clause for those who have to abide by the duty of care to prevent the escape of any waste.
Finally, there is a specific provision which already covers the ground of these amendments. It is part of the duty to prevent any contravention by any other person of Clause 32. Turning to Clause 32, there is a catch-all offence of treating, keeping or disposing of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution or harm to human health which applies to everyone to whom the duty of care applies, not just the licensees. Anyone who does not,
"have regard to the possibility of pollution,"
while they have the waste themselves will be in breach of Clause 32. If they disregard it when they hand it onto someone else, they will be in breach of the duty of care. There is thus double provision in the Bill which ensures prevention of pollution.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I tried to write down what the Minister has just said. Since he has a text and I do not, I hope I have it right. I am grateful to him for referring to Clause 32(1)(c) in particular. He quoted the passage that I had quoted about treating, keeping or disposing,
"of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment".
The Minister continued by saying, "Anyone who does not have regard to the possibility of pollution being caused". He made the point of the provision referring to the licensee or others and said that they

1093
would be covered by the clause. Did he say that? If so, and it is included in the Bill, my amendment would be unnecessary.
Lord Hesketh: I think I am correct in saying that I said. "to dispose of controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment and, furthermore, all harm to human health".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the Minister will forgive me. Can he say what he said after that because what followed were his own words and not those that are in the Bill?
Lord Hesketh: I am not sure that I am correct, but I am advised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is correct. I believe that means that I was correct in what I said initially.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wrote down that the Minister said, "anyone who does not have regard to the possibility of pollution being caused". That is what I wrote down as he said it. I find that more reassuring than the text of the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: I now quote myself. I said,
"have regard to the possibility of pollution".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since those words are not in the Bill, the Minister has acknowledged the justice of my amendment. I rest my case. It is necessary for the statement which the Minister has just made —which is different from the statement contained in Clause 32(1)(c) about "likely to cause" —to be on the face of the Bill. Will the Minister acknowledge that there is a difference between "likely to cause" —in other words, probable —and "possible"? Those are the words that the Minister used.
Lord Hesketh: We are getting into something of a muddle here. I should very much like to see in Hansard what the noble Lord said and then consider the issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am content to do that. Clearly the Minister has gone beyond what the Bill says. It is a matter that we can discuss between now and a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 157:
Page 33, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) to secure the proper control of such waste at all stages to which this subsection applies").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to clarify rather than extend Clause 33 of the Bill. The wording is,
"to secure the proper control of such waste at all stages to which this subsection applies".
We are seeking to apply the cradle-to-the-grave standards which are applied by EC regulations. The EC regulations on this subject are confined at the
1094
moment to hazardous waste. We understand that there is a proposed extension for these regulations to cover all controlled waste as part of a total waste management strategy. I believe that the thinking of the EC is very much along the same lines as that of the Government. I have no doubt that the Government and the EC are attempting to see that there is no conflict between them.
The principle of cradle-to-the-grave protection seems to be valid. It deals with any problem of illegal or improper waste handling at any stage. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 dealt with this right from the beginning. The problem with that Act was recognised when the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 was passed by Parliament. There are substantial ways in which the provisions of the 1974 Act have not been implemented or they have been bypassed. For those reasons, and because we think it desirable for us to continue to be in line with the EC proposals, we put forward this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The explanation of how the duty will operate, which we discussed when dealing with the previous amendment, also covers the ground of Amendment No. 157 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. This amendment would seek to make the person who imports, produces, keeps, treats or disposes of waste to have control over this waste throughout all the stages the waste has to go through. The duty of care already does this. It does not make one person responsible for waste throughout the chain, but it rightly makes each person bear his share of responsibility. It applies to all people whenever they have control of the waste itself. We believe that that is the best and most satisfactory way of achieving the objective. That is why we resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that we share the objective. I am concerned whether the Bill reflects that objective and reflects it effectively. My disquiet is not lessened by my recollection that Section 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 sought to do that in very clear terms. The Act states:
"It shall be the duty of each disposal authority to ensure that the arrangements made by the authority and other persons for the disposal of waste are adequate for the purpose of disposing of all controlled waste which becomes situated"—
I suppose that they must be the real words—
"in its area after this section comes into force and all controlled waste which is likely to become so situated".
The problem is not that the wording is wrong, but in the 16 years since 1974, that section of the Act has never been implemented. The section has never come into force. Will the Minister give me some assurance that the comparable provisions in the new Act will come into force and that the fiasco of Section 1 of the 1974 Act will not be repeated? I am not making a party political point. I am well aware that there were Labour Governments during part of those 16 years.
Lord Hesketh: I certainly would not want to make a political point. We believe equally in the principle of cradle to the grave. We believe that the instruction in Clause 33(1)(a) to ensure no contravention of

1095
Clause 32 means that waste must be subject to proper control at all stages and achieves the same result. I can also assure the noble Lord that the object of detaining noble Lords in Committee is to turn a Bill eventually into an Act to be enforced.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said and consider whether to come back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 158:
Page 33, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) to prevent pollution arising from such waste within the meaning of section 1 above;").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we find ourselves dealing with a point which to an extent we think has been made irrelevant by the debate on Amendment No. 156. As we would like an opportunity to study what was said to see whether the matter is worth returning to, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
The Earl of Arranmoved Amendment No. 160:
Page 34, line 13, at end insert ("or of a disposal licence under section 5 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, in moving Amendment No. 160 I shall speak to Amendment No. 161.
Amendment No. 160 adds the alternative of a person who holds a disposal licence under the 1974 Act to the persons authorised to receive waste under the duty of care. Amendment No. 161 clarifies that regulations may require documents to be furnished to an authority. If any Member of the Committee wishes further enlightenment on the amendments I shall be delighted to endeavour to help. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 34, line 35, leave out from ("the") to end of line 36 and insert ("making and retention of documents and the furnishing of documents or copies of documents.").
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 162:
Page 34, line 36, at end insert:
("(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within two years of the coming into effect of this Part, review the operation of this section, having regard in particular to—

(a) the level of information available to waste regulation authorities concerning wastes and activities to which this section applies; and

(b) the enforcement of this section by local authorities").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 162 is, if I may so put it, a polite way of referring to the fact that there are still, despite the best efforts of all concerned, defects in the proposed code of practice on the duty of care issued in February. The code
1096
does not have the status of law. It is intended under the Bill that a breach of the code will not be an offence but that the courts may take a breach of it into account when considering a breach of the duty of care.
The code of practice is in many ways a good code. It covers unlicensed disposal of waste and it is supposed to provide for the avoidance of dealing with waste in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health, as we discussed when dealing with a previous amendment. It seeks to avoid breaches of waste management licences; to prevent the escape of waste; to ensure that waste is transferred only to a proper person; and to describe waste adequately. There are gaps in the code of practice. But it is not the intention of the amendment to seek to put the code on to the statute book nor to enter into a detailed debate about what the code should include except to say enough about the gaps to justify the terms of the amendment. The amendment provides not for a change in the code of practice itself but for a review by the Secretary of State within two years of the coming into effect of this part of the operations of the duty of care and in particular of the level of information available to waste regulation authorities.
The gaps which I bring to the attention of the Committee include, for example, the failure to provide for the formulation of policies by local authorities for effective implementation of the duty of care, and the failure to provide for adequate emergency plans. This is not simply a theoretical or abstract point. A failure to have adequate emergency plans for dealing with failures in the duty of care provisions —in other words, pollution accidents —can have extremely serious consequences. There is evidence that authorities not just in this country but throughout the world fail to have adequate emergency plans. As a result what otherwise might be a simple spillage or other form of pollution could become a major accident.
There is not adequate provision in the code of practice for waste minimisation. I referred a moment ago to the European Commission's waste management strategy. That has as a principle waste minimisation as well as waste cycling and safe and non-polluting disposal. There is no provision in the code of practice for insurance against breaches of the duty of care. There is not enough provision for powers of entry for those who would have to enforce the duty of care provisions.
Without seeking to elicit government responses to all these points, I hope that I have said enough to show that the code of practice is still not adequate. I hope too that I have justified the proposed provisions for review and for better information. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support the noble Lord. An amendment to ensure that the code of practice is reviewed —I hope that it will be reviewed periodically —and to ensure the necessary resources to make it effective is sensible.
Lord Hesketh: It will be a sad day for me when I come to this Dispatch Box with regard to a code of

1097
practice which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, finds satisfactory the first time out.
The amendment raises two quite separate issues —information and enforcement. There is no doubt that this clause will greatly increase the information available to waste regulation authorities and that that information will make them more effective as enforcers of waste management law.
The vital provision is subsection (5). Regulations will be made under the subsection requiring everyone to keep records of waste received and sent out. Government Amendment No. 161 makes it clear that the regulations may also require these records to be available to authorities. It is our firm intention that such records will form an unbreakable chain of documentation for the movement of waste. This will be less onerous than the special waste consignment note system but sufficient to enable authorities to trace where illegal deposits of waste came from and where a producer's waste has gone.
The second half of the amendment refers to the enforcement of the clause by local authorities. Regulation authorities will be the front line of defence against breaches of the duty of care. But they will not be under the same duty to enforce the provisions of Clause 33 as they are, for example, under the licensing provisions in the latter part of Part II of the Bill. Clause 33 deliberately imposes the duty of care directly on those who hold waste. It does not impose a duty of enforcement on local authorities. If a regulation authority or any other authority, or indeed any person, is not satisfied that a producer or carrier has taken the appropriate steps to deal with his waste he may prosecute for breach of duty of care. In this way the duty of care can be regarded as enabling prosecutions to be made. For waste regulation authorities, it is a vehicle for more efficient enforcement of waste management controls and not an additional enforcement duty.
The noble Lord referred to the code of practice gaps and emergency plans. The code is a guide to persons with waste and not to regulatory authorities. That is why there is nothing in it about planning by authorities, a point to which the noble Lord referred. Plans and reports will be dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. The code of practice is about waste being transferred from one person to another on its way to treatment or disposal. It is not about waste minimisation. That is an internal matter for the waste producers which we shall encourage, but not under this clause.
With regard to emergency plans, the duty-of-care provision is to ensure that no risk of pollution arises from the storage, treatment or disposal of waste. If the waste is of such a nature that its storage presents a major hazard, it will be covered by health and safety legislation. We shall undertake to consider whether a code of practice should refer to those regulations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for that response in so far as it relates to the level of information available to waste regulation authorities. I acknowledge that the position is helped by Amendment No. 161, which we certainly did not
1098
oppose. However, his response about enforcement is very disappointing. I do not accept that it is enough to say that this is dealt with in other parts of the Bill.
The Government have expressed the opinion in the consultation document that the duty of care should not add to the costs of local authorities as waste regulators. However, that cannot really be the case, even though enforcement is literally the responsibility under the duty-of-care provisions of those who are in charge of the waste. If identification of breaches of the duty of care is to be carried out effectively, it will inevitably be part of the responsibility of local authorities as waste regulators; indeed, that is what the term "waste regulator" means. Therefore, there will be different additional duties imposed upon local authorities. They will need extra staff to monitor the activities of waste producers and carriers. Moreover, they will have to handle the increased level of information and documention which will be required.
I thought that my amendment was modest. As I said, it does not seek to try to deal with all the potential defects of the code of practice. I agree with the Minister that it would be most surprising if any code of practice was found to be perfect the first time it was presented. All such measures work better after they have been thought about and after there has been adequate consultation. However, I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister is resisting the idea of a review of the operation of the section with regard to the level of information available and the enforcement of the section by local authorities. A review of the enforcement carried out under this clause does not imply any intrusion into local authorities' responsibilities as regards those who are producing or carrying waste; but it recognises that if there is to be action against those who breach the duty of care, local authorities will inevitably be involved. I wonder whether the Minister could give me a little more indication of support for the idea of a review. Perhaps he will also give us an idea as to whether he recognises the role of local authorities in making the duty-of-care provisions work.
Lord Hesketh: My dear —I am sorry, I meant to say, my Lords —I said at the end of my first remarks on the matter that we would undertake to consider whether the code of practice should refer to these regulations. I cannot go further than that at this stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My dear Minister —I think one may say that in epistolatory form. It appears that the Minister does not to wish to recognise the commonsense approach which we are taking with this amendment. I fear that, unless the code of practice is allowed to work itself in and to be modified after review, it will not work as well as it would otherwise. Therefore, the role of local authorities in insisting upon the enforcement, if I may put it that way, will not be as effective as it could be. I regret the Minister's response. In the circumstances, I think it is best to take the opinion of the Committee.
6.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 162) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Aylestone, L.

Meston, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Nathan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

[Teller.]

Serota, B.

Grey, E.

Shannon, E.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

[Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Varley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Willis, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Balfour, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boardman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Burton, L.

Mills, V.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Coleraine, L.

Norrie, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Pearson of Rannock, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Reay, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rees, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Savile, L.

Halsbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Hesketh, L.

E.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Swinton, E.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Tranmire, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Layton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lindsay, E.

Wise, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.42 p.m.
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 164:
Page 35, line 10, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord said: This amendment continues with the problems associated with codes of practice. It seeks to delete Clause 33(11). Subsection (7) empowers the Secretary of State to prepare and issue codes of practice and Subsection (11) allows different codes to be prepared and issued for different regions.
Codes of practice should seek to establish uniform standards across the country, but that subsection appears to allow for a variation in standards. The industry, including waste producers, carriers and disposers wants to secure a common national standard in waste management. I do not see how that can be achieved when different codes apply in different regions.
In theory —I referred to this point when we discussed Amendment No. 144 —one could have 150 regulating authorities covering England, Wales and Scotland. To take the matter to the extreme, in theory one could have 150 different codes of practice. I admit that that is unlikely, but, nevertheless, even if regionalisation were to occur, as it was suggested might happen on a voluntary basis when my noble friend referred to my Amendment No. 257, there could still be a number of variations. Apart from those variations distorting competitive standards, they would have an injurious effect on training in the industry and site management transfers, because the trainer or proprietor moving a manager from one area to another may have to have regard to small details of change that occur from area to area. That does not seem to me to be helpful.
I referred earlier this afternoon to a transportation problem. The movement of waste from a producer site to a disposal site could involve moving through as many as 10 different waste regulation areas. I referred to South Wales, because a great deal of waste in South Wales is disposed of in the East Midlands, which is a journey of about 80 or 90 miles. Again, we have traffic passing through areas whose regulations may differ.
However, the disposal of special waste requires a pre-notification procedure by the producer to the authority in whose area the waste will be disposed. That is a standard requirement. It covers all areas of the United Kingdom. New codes of practice which offer different guidance in different, areas will confuse the producers, confuse their responsibilities under the 1980 special waste regulations and confuse the carriers as to their responsibilities.
I believe that my amendment is technically defective in that it does not have regard to the practice in Scotland. When the matter was debated in another place in relation to Clause 40 the Minister accepted that the reference to different areas was included to deal with different arrangements for

1101
charging in Scotland. England and Wales. While the provision may be appropriate for charging—that is a point to which we shall come later, because I do not believe that it is appropriate to charging—I fail to see why different standards should prevail in relation to different areas, as I have described. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: Despite the fact that my noble friend has missed out Scotland, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give the matter further consideration. My noble friend seems to have a good argument. I hope that the Government will consider tabling an amendment on Report.
Lord Reay: I hope that I will be able to allay the anxieties of my noble friends. As my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has explained, the amendment seeks to delete Clause 33(11), and would in effect prevent a different code of practice being issued for different areas, as the subsection puts it. That subsection is intended to distinguish the constituent parts of Great Britain —England, Scotland and Wales —rather than any smaller regions. We do not intend to have a code for any different areas within England, Wales or Scotland. Two draft codes have already been drawn up: one to cover England and Wales and a separate code for Scotland. This is one of those cases where the wording used is well established —so our legal advisers informs us —and the words "different areas" are only used as the most economical means of giving necessary discretion.
My noble friend can be reassured that uniform standards will be established across the country. It is necessary to have flexibility to allow for particular national variations between Scotland and England; for example, where, as my noble friend will be aware, there are different legal systems. If he looks at the draft code of practice issued for England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other, he will notice that they are almost identical. In view of that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I shall withdraw the amendment this afternoon, notably because I have had regard to the voting pattern on the Division a few moments ago. However I have to tell my noble friend that I am not satisfied. My noble friend Lord Burton asked the Government to consider this matter. In his response, the Minister said, "In fact, no, what we are really thinking about here is a code for England, Scotland and Wales, where there are different legal patterns and obviously, understandably, different physical characteristics".
That is not what the Bill says. It states quite clearly "for different areas". It does not say "for the principal area"; it does not say "for England, Scotland and Wales". My noble friend's legal advisers say that that is the usual form in which matters are set down and that it is an economic way of using words. It is not. It uses far more words than if one just said "England, Scotland and Wales" and had done with it.
1102
It is absolute nonsense. If the Government mean precisely that there will be three codes of practice covering the three areas of the United Kingdom —that is, England, Scotland and Wales —let us say so. Then everybody will understand. Contractors will not have to go to their legal advisers asking what is meant. I find my noble friend's answer on this point this afternoon singularly unattractive and unhelpful. I shall take further advice to ensure that my amendment does not have the technical deficiency that I suspect exists now. I shall almost certainly return to this later at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Waste management licences: general]:
The Earl of Arranmoved Amendment No. 165:
Page 35, line 15, after ("waste") insert ("in or").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Hesketh, I wish to move Amendment No. 165 and speak to Amendments Nos. 166 and 171. These are purely drafting amendments. Waste can be deposited in as well as on land. The government amendments put it beyond doubt that licensing applies to either, in line with the wording in Clause 32. Perhaps I may also say that the further elaboration proposed by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, are not necessary. I can assure them that the deposit of waste underground —however deep —is covered by the phrase, "in or on land". I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Obviously Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are necessary improvements. Although my noble friend Lord Arran described them as drafting amendments, they are drafting amendments with important practical results. I join my noble friend in suggesting that the Committee should accept them. Obviously I shall not move Amendment No. 166A. However, I should be grateful if the Committee would allow me to move Amendment No. 166B, for reasons that I shall give when we come to it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Before I put this matter to the Committee, I should point out that if the amendments under discussion are agreed to, Amendment No. 166B will be pre-empted.
Lord Renton: I am much obliged to the Lord Chairman. That means that I must now use the discussion of Amendment No. 165 as a peg on which to hang a request for certain assurances which the National Rivers Authority desires with regard to these amendments.
Clause 34(2)(a) deals with,
"the case of a licence relating to the treatment, keeping or disposal of waste on land".
That waste on land can affect the water resources which lie either under the land or beside it. They may be keep down in the earth. They may be large

1103
underground deposits which we find in this country, especially under chalk hills, or they may be deposits from which water can be extracted but which are dispersed through the soil.
The National Rivers Authority wishes to be assured that landfill sites where controlled waste has been disposed of, and is therefore being kept, will require a licence, whether or not the sites are currently disused or ancient sites. Any site where waste has been deposited is potentially dangerous to water.
The requirement placed on the waste regulation authorities under Clauses 35, 36 and 38 to consult the National Rivers Authority over the issuing, variation or surrender of licences should surely be extended to any licence in connection with a closed landfill site. If that were done, it would give the National Rivers Authority the opportunity to make representations to the WRA in question about the risk of pollution of these underground water deposits and other water resources from a closed site that had been covered over.
In addition, if disused landfill sites were required to be licensed, then details about them would have to be recorded in the registers maintained by the WRA in accordance with Clause 61 of the Bill. They certainly should be recorded in the registers. This would be an important addition to the public registers, which would be of considerable help to the National Rivers Authority and others as a comprehensive record of old, disused waste sites.
We have the advantage of having as a Member of your Lordships' Committee the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. He may well wish to support what I have said. I hope that the matter is already quite clear. There is therefore no point in my moving an amendment which I am told has fallen, though I was surprised to be told that, because it is arguable that "in land" and "under land" have slightly different shades of meaning. However, the last thing I should wish to do in the presence of Members of the Committee is to split hairs.
The Earl of Arran: My noble friend has made some precise and technical points, as is his wont from time to time. However, I shall need to study carefully in Hansard exactly what he has said so that I may return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful for the statement by the Minister that he will reconsider the matter. Clearly there is a problem on disused sites where the ownership is not known. There is an existing problem which is causing great difficulties in some areas where sites are having to be capped or treated because of pollution. As I understand the Bill, where waste is being kept a licence has to be held. Where the ownership is known, presumably the protection that is sought will be provided. This is an extremely important matter because the potential pollution from these waste fill sites is so great. The Committee should look to the Government for clarification on this matter at a later stage.
Lord Renton: My noble friend has said that the Government will consider the matter. However, we must be very careful that it can be reconsidered at a future stage of the Bill. It would seem from the ruling of the Chair that if Amendment No. 166B were to be moved at a later stage, it might be out of order to reconsider this matter. Therefore I wonder whether my noble friend can say in what manner he suggests that the result of the government inquiries can be given to us. I rather laboriously spun out the comments that I had to make in the hope that we would be able to receive an answer. Perhaps even now it might be possible for us to have one.
The Earl of Arran: I shall not let my noble friend down because during the intervening time I have been able to secure an answer that may interest him. I can assure him that landfill sites will require licensing. As regards old landfill sites, Clause 58 contains a duty for waste regulation authorities to monitor the site and to take remedial action to prevent pollution of underground waters. For any operational site the licensing provisions and conditions will protect underground waters. I can assure my noble friends that the NRA is a statutory consultee.
Lord Renton: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell is as grateful as I am for that assurance. It was well worth waiting for.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay: This may be a convenient moment for us to break. I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.5 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Home-Grown Cereals Authority Oilseeds Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1990
7.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 18th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the instrument before us is concerned with oilseeds. It introduces a new scheme for levying producers of oilseeds in order to fund certain areas of oilseeds research and development. The Government announced last year that from 1st April 1991 agricultural research and development work that has been identified as near market would no longer be supported by public funding. The Government believe that such work, from which industry derives direct benefit, should be funded by industry. The Government will, however, continue to support strategic research and research into areas of environmental concern.

1105
At present my department spends between £500,000 and £600,000 a year on near market oilseeds research. Expenditure on this work will be phased out by 1991. Against that background the Government recognised that a suitable mechanism was needed to enable the oilseeds industry to raise funds for near market research. Following discussions last year with interested organisations, it was agreed that the best way of proceeding would be to introduce a statutory levy scheme for oilseed crops to be administered by the Home-Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA). The levy would be raised from oilseed growers but for administrative efficiency it would be collected at the point of first sale of the crop. Such a scheme was overwhelmingly supported by growers in a poll carried out last year. Over 77 per cent. of UK growers were in favour.
As a first step towards the establishment of an oilseeds levy scheme it was necessary to extend the remit of the HGCA to cover oilseeds. This was done last year when Parliament approved the Cereals Marketing Act (Application to Oilseeds) Order 1989. The present instrument, which establishes the levy scheme itself, is the second necessary stage of the legislative process.
After consultation with interested parties, the HGCA presented a draft levy scheme to agriculture Ministers. Having completed their own consultations, the Government have decided to ask Parliament to approve the HGCA's draft scheme without modification.
The scheme imposes a levy in respect of rapeseed, linseed, soyabeans and sunflowerseeds grown in the United Kingdom. It requires the levy to be paid by dealers who purchase these oilseeds or by intermediaries acting on their behalf or on behalf of overseas purchasers and by growers who sell direct to the intervention board. The scheme empowers those dealers, or their intermediaries, to recover an amount equal to the levy from the grower. In all cases, therefore, it is the grower who ultimately bears the cost of the levy.
The scheme also provides for the registration of those parties paying the levy and allows the HGCA to require them to keep records of purchases and sales of oilseeds, which the authority may inspect, and to make half-yearly returns. In the event of non-payment, the HGCA is empowered to recover the levy as a civil debt.
A separate order, subject to negative resolution procedure, setting the rate of the oilseeds levy for 1990–91 at 50p per tonne, plus 15 per cent. VAT, was laid before the House on 8th June. On an average UK harvest of around 1 million tonnes of oilseeds, this rate of levy would raise around £500,000, for the industry to spend on R&D. This amount is comparable to that spent by government on near market work at present. The HGCA has set up an oilseeds R&D committee to determine how the levy money should be spent. The committee will liaise with other commissioners of oilseeds research.
The introduction of the levy scheme is widely supported by the oilseed industry and I believe that the scheme now before the House provides a most
1106
suitable vehicle for encouraging effective on-going funding for oilseeds R&D. I have a few final words. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for whom I have the greatest respect, not to say affection, will not take it amiss if I say I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not in his place in the Chamber this evening as I am well aware how long and assiduously he has campaigned for an R&D levy for oilseeds. I commend the statutory instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 18th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I shall begin by thanking the noble Baroness for explaining in detail the order and its purpose. I should say at once that we are in support of the order, which we recognise as being desirable and necessary. It advances considerably the Minister's policy of inviting the industry to undertake the funding of what is designated as near market research. While it is fresh in my mind I should also say that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, whose absence the Minister quite properly regretted, told me before he departed your Lordships' House that I was to say on his behalf that he had been advocating just such a levy for at least 10 years. Apparently virtue has its reward.
We are particularly pleased that the levy follows a poll of growers and that 77 per cent. of those voting in that poll were in favour of the levy. That provides a very good basis for its introduction and a very good justification for the levy. We are in no doubt that the levy is fully justified and that the Home-Grown Cereals Authority will make good use of the money in what is an important and growing area of activity by British farmers. It may be even more important if, as a result of the GATT negotiations, the offer by the Community to make some concession on grains in favour of some relief as regards imported oilseeds and the like finds favour with GATT and becomes part and parcel of the GATT arrangements. That would seem to us to justify even more research into the oilseed industry.
There is only one query that I should like to raise with the Minister, which is procedural. She will be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, in its 20th report, had some things to say about the order. They did not disturb me unduly because, quite frankly, questions of vires and the like are way beyond me. I remember that as a student I had acute difficulty in understanding what the word vires meant in the first place. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the vires of the order was questioned. On the whole I am satisfied by the response that the ministry has made to the comments by the joint committee about vires.
There is also the question of recovering through the courts payments not made under the order. Apparently that is to be done summarily in magistrates' courts in England and Wales, but the joint committee was concerned that no corresponding procedure exists in Scotland and only a limited correspondence of procedure exists in Northern Ireland. On reading the joint committee's

1107
comments I believe that it would have favoured civil court action if debt should arise under the order.
There was also a query about the power being given to the Home-Grown Cereals Authority —whose work in the whole area of cereals I greatly admire —under the order to require growers covered by the scheme to submit half-yearly returns giving such information as the authority may require. Again, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments thought that to give the Home-Grown Cereals Authority such wide powers was somewhat excessive. In any case the committee thought that the powers were being sought under the wrong section of the enabling Act of 1965. Without entering into any controversy on that aspect, I have noticed that again the ministry has accepted in effect that in a future alteration to the order it will seek some rectification of the powers under which the Home-Grown Cereals Authority may seek information from growers of the kind which would be useful to it and which I believe, on the basis of its track record, will be well used by the authority and will not be excessive.
I was also interested in the comment made about the negative instrument which is to be tabled setting the amount of the levy. I have heard with great alarm and some despondency that VAT is to be included in the levy. I give notice that I hope to come back later to find out why such a commendable and worthy cause as research of this kind should be subject to VAT. I remember a lady for whom I have great respect saying that the letters VAT stood for very awkward tax. In this context it is not merely awkward, it is unfair as well. But that will keep for another occasion. In the meantime we welcome the order and again I thank the noble Baroness for introducing it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I have to say that I share his views on vires. I do not see any point in my reading out the response that was given because we both have the same information. I am grateful to the noble Lord and I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill
7.14 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
There have been many debates in this Chamber on the desirability of low-alcohol beverages and many attempts have been made to achieve proper definition. The problem has always been complicated by the fact that the beverages' classification has always been based on what the alcoholic strength might have been at some stage in the manufacturing process. That meant that beverages made by fermentation and other like processes were classified as intoxicating liquor even though they were subsequently diluted. The Bill clarifies the position by amending the definition of previous licensing Acts for England, Scotland and
1108
Wales. It defines alcoholic strength by volume as measured at the point of sale or supply and puts the limit at 0.5 per cent. For those who do not like decimals, that is half of 1 per cent. in vulgar fractions.
The Bill was introduced in another place by Sir Peter Emery, the Member for Honiton, and received support from all political parties. It has also received support from health education authorities, from the brewers, from wine and spirit associations and many other organisations. It needs no amendment or modification and is very simple indeed.
There is, however, one further point and I should like to make. One would have liked to see the Bill implemented as soon as possible, but it appears that there is a need to obtain Community agreement on labelling and other related matters. As a result, a rather extended deadline of the end of 1993 has been agreed. However, the Bill can be implemented earlier and I hope that the Secretary of State will introduce the necessary statutory instrument much earlier as the provisions of the Bill are much needed and will be widely welcomed. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill now be read a second time. —(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
7.17 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein for introducing the Bill and for the manner in which he has described its purpose. It takes forward discussions that have continued over many years on the subject of the definition of alcoholic strength. On the last occasion when we discussed the matter, in 1988, we were not able to persuade all parties that it was in the best interests. My noble friend did not say this, but I have the impression that the Government have given their support to the Bill. My noble friend Lord Ferrers will no doubt confirm that. Therefore it ought to go through your Lordships' House without any problems. The Bill ought also to make low-alcohol drinks more widely available. I hope that the industry will take the opportunity that this Bill presents to reduce the price as the market expands. I am most grateful to my noble friend and I wish the Bill speed and success.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches we wish the Bill well. It may be modest in its intentions but I am certain that there are thousands of people for whom it will be a last resort, saving them from becoming ill as a result of obtaining, if they want to imbibe, drink which is far too strong for their condition. I believe that the Bill presents a powerful opportunity to reduce dependence on strong drink, which, sadly, afflicts far to many people.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the opportunity that it should provide for reducing the price of low-alcohol drinks. Many people who go into a pub these days and obtain non-alcohol and low-alcohol drinks reasonably assume that they should be marginally cheaper than those with a higher alcohol content. We all

1109
understand the economics of the business, but we should consider an investigation into how drinks of that kind appear to be disproportionately dearer. We owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Peter Emery, the honourable Member for Honiton, who brought the Bill before the House of Commons, and we on these Benches wish it well.
7.20 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches accept the contents of the Bill. It is a commendable Bill and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it rounds off a discussion which we had during the passage of the Licensing Bill. I endorse everything that has been said and I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, on explaining the contents of the Bill to us so clearly.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. The climate of opinion regarding drinking has changed dramatically over the past three or four years, even since our interesting discussions on the Licensing Bill. The marketing of low-alcohol beers has become a large business. That makes it possible and desirable for the cost of those beers to be lower than it is at present. One hopes to see growth in the sale of those beers and in the taste for them so that —it has not yet happened —young people will see that it is possible to drink beers with a flavour that they like without necessarily getting drunk to enjoy themselves on a night out. Unfortunately, that is an area in which the British, along with other European nations, have problems with young people, but the scene is changing and I am optimistic for the future.
The brevity of my speech has nothing to do with the fact that England are to play Egypt at eight o'clock. We accept the Bill and are grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing it.
7.22 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought it might be helpful if I were to give noble Lords the Government's view of the Bill. However, I should first like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein on his helpful and remarkably concise exposition of the Bill. The Bill deals with detail, but is nonetheless important.
Broadly speaking, the Bill ensures that all drinks containing 0.5 per cent. alcohol by volume or less at point of sale would not be regarded as intoxicating liquor, or, in Scotland, as alcoholic liquor, for licensing purposes. The Government recognise that the impact of the present definition of "intoxicating liquor" in licensing law on the growing number of low and no-alcohol beers and wines, which are coming on to the market, has given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding and concern. We therefore very much welcome the introduction of the Bill which, if successful, will clarify and bring up to date this aspect of the licensing law.
The 1964 Licensing Act, which applies in England and Wales, prohibits the retail sale of intoxicating liquor without a licence. It also makes it an offence for a licensee to sell intoxicating liquor to someone under the age of 18. Intoxicating liquor is defined
1110
in the Act as spirits, wine, beer, cider and any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor. The definition goes on to exclude from licensing controls,
"any liquor which is found, on an analysis of a sample, thereof at any time to to be of an original gravity not exceeding 1016 degrees and of a strength not exceeding 1.2 per cent. alcohol by volume".
The important point is the phrase "at any time".
The interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts but, in the absence of any ruling from them, we have taken the view that that definition brings within the scope of intoxicating liquor a considerable number of the low and no-alcohol drinks which are now on the market. That is because they are produced, in the main, from full strength brews from which some or nearly all of the alcohol at some time is then taken out.
Such drinks may, when they are sold, contain less than 1.2 per cent. alcohol, but at an earlier stage will have contained sufficient alcohol to have themselves classified as "intoxicating liquor". Some may even qualify to be referred to as "alcohol free" because they have an alcoholic strength by volume at point of sale of less than 0.05 per cent. It is therefore an absurdity to have an "alcohol-free" drink classified as intoxicating liquor simply because, at some stage in its manufacture, it contained alcohol which was subsequently extracted.
The inclusion in the definition of intoxicating liquor of the reference to an original gravity not exceeding 1016 degrees and the words "at any time" means that those low-alcohol and alcohol-free drinks must be regarded as intoxicating liquor for licensing purposes. They may not, therefore, be sold without the benefit of a justices' licence and, even then, not to young people under 18. That is the case in England and Wales, but the position in Scotland is essentially the same.
The existing definition of intoxicating liquor was drawn up before low and no-alcohol drinks were produced and promoted on the scale on which they are now. The law was never intended to have the effect that it now has. We therefore consider that the changes which are promoted in the Bill are fully justified.
In the first place, the changes will resolve the ambiguity in the present law. It will be made clear that the test to be applied, for example, when considering whether or not a liquor licence is required before a particular drink can be sold, will be its alcoholic strength at the point of sale and not how strong it might once have been at some stage in the process of its manufacture. That is obviously sensible and, I understand, is much welcomed by the drinks industry.
It would put an end to some of the anomalies to which the present law can give rise. There are, for instance, some drinks, which contain between 0·05 per cent. and 1·2 per cent. alcohol and which have been manufactured in such a way that they never exceeded the criteria of both 1016 degrees and 1·2 per cent. and therefore are not in law intoxicating liquor. The fact that they contain alcohol as high as 1·2 per cent. at the time of sale is, at the present state of the law, irrelvant. Perversely, other drinks of the same or even weaker strengths are nevertheless

1111
regarded as intoxicating liquor because they went through the proverbial sound barrier at some point in their manufacture.
Secondly, we have received strong representations from voluntary organisations which seek to provide leisure facilities for young people as an alternative to their engaging in illicit drinking in public houses that the present law has some positively harmful effects. It prevents those organisations offering a range of low and no-alcohol drinks in the unlicensed clubs and other such places that they run. That adversely affects their ability to expand those facilities and to attract young people away from the more adult form of drinking which, in their case, is anyhow against the law.
A change in the law of the kind proposed in the Bill should encourage the greater provision of those facilities for young people and should assist those who are seeking, in a forthright way, to combat under-age drinking.
We have been most concerned, when considering this issue, to look closely at what should be the percentage of alcohol that it would be safe to permit in drinks which could be sold without a licence and which could then be consumed by quite young children. It is our view, on the basis of the medical evidence that we have been able to consider, that the threshold of 0·5 per cent. alcohol which the Bill seeks to establish is the right one. It would free from the licensing requirement a number of different low and no-alcohol beers and all dealcoholised wines.
We should like to see this change take effect as soon as possible. But, however desirable its early implementation may be, there are certain matters affecting both manufacturers and retailers which need to be resolved before it would be sensible to bring it into force. In the short term, producers of low and no-alcohol drinks may wish, or may need, to alter their manufacturing processes in the light of the changes which will be introduced by the Bill so that their drinks may be such as to be permitted to be sold without a licence.
In addition, attention will almost certainly have to be given to certain questions of food labelling law. At present, canned and bottled shandy has to contain at least 0.9 per cent. alcohol in order for it to qualify for the description of shandy. It can, though, be sold from unlicensed premises because at no time in its manufacture did it exceed the mystic figures of 1016 degrees and 1.2 per cent. of alcohol. If this Bill becomes law and the labelling provisions are not altered, shandy will no longer be able to be sold from unlicensed premises. I understand that the manufacturers wish to continue to sell shandy from unlicensed premises even though the alcoholic content will need to be reduced to 0.5 per cent.
So the labelling laws will have to be changed. But any changes would first require full consultation with interested parties and then notification to the European Commission. All of this as your Lordship say will understand, may take some time. This accounts for the somewhat unusual commencement provision in the Bill which provides that the Act shall come into force on a day appointed by the
1112
Secretary of State but that, if it has not already done so by 1st January 1994, it shall come into force on that date.
While I cannot say that we would like to see this sort of commencement provision repeated in other legislation as a normal course of events, we understand the reasons for its inclusion in the Bill. I wish my noble friend every success with his Bill. I hope that it soon reaches the statute book.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, sits down, I should like to say how deeply impressed I am by his extraordinary mastery of chemistry and the legalities of this abstruse subject. It has added to the reputation he has in this House of being the master of every subject put before him.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I respond to such felicitations. I am glad that the noble Lord was impressed. So was I.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl ought also to remember that this is a matter of the utmost "gravity".
7.33 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill, even those who spoke spontaneously towards the end of the proceedings. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas who reminded us that he has been a pioneer for the proposals over many years. His support is very gratifying. Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and I have all been involved in the subject for some years: it is gratifying to see progress.
Halfway through the speech by my noble friend Lord Ferrers I began to think that what I had originally thought was quite a simple matter had become somewhat complicated. However, the point is that Shakespeare won through, and "all's well that ends well". I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for saying that the Government give the Bill a fair passage and that he wishes it well. It is a small but important piece of legislation. I hope that it will go faster than we think, and I thank everybody for having participated.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
7.34 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: 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 Brougham and Vaux.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GRANTCHESTER in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Sections substituted for Sections 14 and 15 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984]:
Lord Brougham and Vauxmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 39, leave out ("and (3)") and insert (", (3) and (4A)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 8. In the course of my remarks at Second Reading last week I undertook to bring forward amendments in relation to temporary traffic orders affecting footpaths, bridleways, cycle tracks and byways open to all traffic. These amendments fulfil that promise. They concern the proposed new Section 15 to be inserted in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by virtue of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Section 15 provides for the permitted duration of temporary orders and notices. As currently drafted, the Bill stipulates a standard period of 18 months for all orders or combinations of notice and order. There is provision for a longer period to enable essential works to be completed, or to allow traditional time when an equivalent permanent order is to be made.
Following representations in another place from the Ramblers' Association and the British Horse Society, it was agreed that a shorter period than 18 months would be appropriate where temporary orders would affect walkers, horse-riders and cyclists, who may be rather more inconvenienced than motorised traffic by temporary closures and diversions. The effect of the amendments, therefore, is to introduce a six-month time limit for such orders instead of 18 months.
The amendments provide that the Secretary of State may extend the six-month period at the request of the order-making authority. That allows, as now, for some flexibility where circumstances may justify a longer restriction. If he refuses a request, the authority may not frustrate it and bring forward a further order until a period of three months has elapsed. Again, that is a formulation which exists at present in Section 15.
Finally, definitions are provided for footpaths, bridleways, cycle tracks and byways open to all traffic by reference to existing statutes, including those in Scotland where appropriate. The objective behind the amendments has been agreed by the parties who had initially expressed their anxieties about longer restrictions. I hope they will commend them selves to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: From these Benches may I say that we are pleased that the not exactly hiccough but slight hesitation that might have occurred because of some dissatisfaction has been sorted out so amicably outside the House. I am sure that this owes a great deal to the conciliatory attitude that the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, has not just in this matter but in others.
One needs to get consensus in these matters. When he refers to the interests of the ramblers, the local authorities and other parties, then obviously, in a measure designed to be beneficial to the whole
1114
community, it is a good thing that the Committee is assured, as we are, by the noble Lord that satisfaction has been reached outside the House. From these Benches we are pleased to wish the Bill continued speed.
Lord Tordoff: I indicated at Second Reading that I was not prepared to let the noble Lord just take these things through on the nod. However, having heard his explanation, I am perfectly happy that he is doing good things for ramblers, who are good people, and therefore that these amendments should be supported.
The Earl of Strathmore and KinghorneI need say very little except to give the Government's full support to my noble friend's amendments. The Committee will be grateful for his clear words of explanation. As my noble friend Lord Davidson remarked last week in the course of Second Reading, it is incumbent on local authorities to minimise the obstruction of rights of way. Non-vehicular traffic is particularly inconvenienced by closures and diversions. The Government have accepted that a shorter period is appropriate in the circumstances described by my noble friend. Agreement to that effect was reached in correspondence between my honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and the Ramblers' Association and the British Horse Society, following exchanges in another place.
I am satisfied that my noble friend's amendments fully reflect the terms of the agreement. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I am most grateful to the Minister.
I apologise to the Committee if I sound stuffed up; I have a streaming cold. As a sponsor of the Bill in this Chamber, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Tordoff, for their kind remarks about it. I am sure that my honourable friend in another place will appreciate everyone's remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brougham and Vauxmoved Amendments Nos. 2 to 8:
Page 4, line 41, after ("months") insert ("or, if the order is one to which subsection (1A) below applies, six months").
Page 4, line 42, at end insert:
("(1A) This subsection applies to an order in respect of a footpath, bridleway, cycle track or byway open to all traffic.").
Page 4, line 43, after ("time-limit") insert ("of eighteen months").
Page 4, line 50, after ("time-limit") insert ("of eighteen months").
Page 5, line 18, at end insert:
("(4A) The Secretary of State may, at the request of an authority that has made an order subject to the time-limit of six months in subsection (1) above, from time to time direct that the order shall continue in force for a further period from the date on which it would otherwise cease to be in force.
(4B) Where the Secretary of State refuses a request under subsection (4A) above in respect of an order no further order to which that subsection applies shall be made in respect of any length of road to which the previous order related unless the Secretary of State has consented to the making of the further

1115
order or at least three months have expired since the date on which the previous order ceased to be in force.").
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("or (3) above") and insert (", (3) or (4A) above and subject to subsection (4B) above").
Page 5, line 42, at end insert:
("(7) In the application of this section to England and Wales—

(a) "footpath" does not include a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only which is at the side of a public road;

(b) "cycle track" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980; and

(c) "byway open to all traffic" means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic but which is used by the public mainly for the purpose for which footpaths and bridleways are used.

(8) In the application of this section to Scotland "footpath" and "cycle track" have the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.42 to 8.5 p.m.]

Environmental Protection Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 34.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): Amendment No. 166, of which there appears to be an alternative version in Amendment No. 166A.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 35, line 20, after ("waste") insert ("in or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 166A not moved.]
Lord Rentonhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 166B:
Page 35, line 20, after ("on") insert ("or under").
The noble Lord said: This Chamber is full of the happiest surprises. In view of what happened before dinner I did not expect that it would be possible for this amendment to be called by the Chairman. In view of the assurances that I have already been given, I do not propose to move it, but it is good to know that it would be in order to move it at Report stage if by any mischance I find on reading Hansard that the assurances were not quite as good as I had hoped. I do not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 166B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Harringeymoved Amendment No. 167:
Page 35, line 25, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 168. In Clause 34 we are very much concerned with an issue which occupied some time in Committee when we were considering Part I of the Bill; namely, what is the meaning of the polluter pays principle. It is a phrase that is easy to say but not very easy to define.
Our great fear about the polluter pays principle as it is so widely expressed is that it may simply result in perhaps some financial penalty, perhaps some tax or perhaps even some income to help the authorities that are concerned to prevent pollution; but in itself it will not prevent pollution. Therefore we feel that a licence under the terms of Clause 34 ought to include, as is stated in Amendment No. 168:
"a requirement for the licensee [to undertake] … before the operation of the licence … such works as the authority may consider appropriate … to secure the prevention of the occurrence of pollution".
We recognise that the effect of this part of the Bill will be to increase considerably the costs of the operators of licensed waste disposal sites. That is not something necessarily to be regretted because it is part of the object of the Bill (which we applaud) to increase the efficacy of waste management processes, and that must mean, if it is to be interpreted properly and strictly, an increase in the costs of the operation of waste management. However, it does not necessarily mean that the licensing procedure in itself will cause a reduction in the efficacy of the prevention of pollution. It may simply mean that that becomes an additional cost to be paid by the operators.
The question then arises as to how we are to deal with pollution when it occurs because, under various circumstances, legal or illegal, undoubtedly it will still occur. A number of suggestions have been put forward. In some ways the most interesting comes from the United States rather than this country. That is the idea of a super-fund; in other words, a fund contributed to widely but made available for the relief of pollution —the cleaning up of pollution after it has occurred —on a national basis. The problem with such a fund is that, unless it is prohibitively expensive, it is almost certain that it will be insufficient for the purpose.
The second suggestion —and in some ways this may be a suggestion more attractive to this Government —is the idea of having insurance policies against the costs of cleaning up after pollution has occurred. The problem with that is that the insurance industry in this country is not geared up to dealing with pollution of that kind. I recognise that Lloyds, through its international obligations and the reinsurance which it undertakes, finds itself responsible and paying for many major international pollution incidents. However, we are not talking about major pollution incidents but about day to day infringements of environmental protection standards. I do not see any evidence that our insurance industry knows how to deal with that or would know how to set premiums, or whether

1117
the authorities concerned and those responsible for waste management and disposal would be able to pay any premiums available.
The third proposition, which is implied by this amendment, is the idea that there should be a performance bond. That matter was raised on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, on consideration of Part I of the Bill. I do not believe that that matter has been disposed of merely because that amendment has been discussed. A performance bond provision would mean that those responsible for processes which might cause pollution would have to put a deposit against contingencies which might occur if pollution was caused. They would be released from that deposit once it had been shown that adequate steps had been taken to ensure that infringements of environmental protection regulations or legislation had been and would be avoided on a consistent basis.
Therefore, this amendment addresses the issue that there should be a moving away from the strict interpretation of the polluter pays principle. In other words, we are moving away from the position that pollution may take place if sufficient payment is made to the principle of the polluter paying for prevention. The only way of ensuring that that is done is by payment being made in advance. That is the object of these two amendments. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: The Government should consider carefully the aim of these two amendments, or at least the principle behind them. Ultimately, the stance of preparing for pollution or taking active steps to prevent it will be a thousand times more effective than saying, "If you cause damage to the environment, you will pay a price to put it right". That is especially so when we consider that very often it is impossible to put right the damage caused, especially not in the short or medium term.
Bearing that in mind, I shall be interested to hear what are the Government's views on this issue and I await their reply with great interest.
Lard Reay: I hope that I shall be able to assure the noble. Lord, Lord McIntosh, that these amendments are not necessary since their provisions are already covered in the Bill. The first requirement for an applicant to submit a programme of work to the authority before a licence is granted is already common practice following the publication in 1988 of Waste Management Paper 4. That clearly stated that all licences should contain a working plan and that this plan should be submitted as part of the licence application. The advice now contained in this waste management paper will become statutory advice under the provisions of subsection (8) of this clause. In future, therefore, all applications will contain the plan which the noble Lord wishes to see.
On the second matter that the amendment seeks to introduce, we already have provision in the requirements for the applicants to be fit and proper persons —under Clauses 35 and 71 —for licensees to demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to see
1118
their obligations through to the end. There are however a great many different ways in which a licensee may choose to demonstrate his solvency. Bonds are one, but the industry may choose also to set up some mutual arrangements or there might be provision through escrow accounts for the individual company to guarantee the funds. It would not be sensible to set down in statute only a single way of satisfying the authorities.
It could be the case in some circumstances that bonds could be an expensive and inefficient way for industry to give its guarantees. Bonds are suitable for sums of, for example, £50,000 for a few months. However, in waste disposal, particularly landfill, the sums needed to cover all the potential costs of something going wrong throughout the period of responsibility —which could be something like 30 years —would be prohibitively expensive. It would be necessary to tie up more capital in the bond than was used for the operations themselves. We do not believe that that is sensible when there are perfectly acceptable alternatives.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that this amendment is not necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very willing to be persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord. My cause for concern is that when he says what could be done in this way or that way —for example, by an escrow account —how are we to be assured that that will happen?
Lord Reay: The answer is that the authorities must be satisfied of the financial capabilities of the persons to whom the licences are given. They will have to be satisfied as regards whatever financial arrangements are put forward to demonstrate the solvency of the persons concerned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does that mean that the Secretary of State will take action to ensure that being satisfied about the financial status of the undertaker means that the authority has the right —I use the example which the noble Lord gave —to impose a requirement that money should be deposited in an escrow account? I do not see how the Secretary of State will ensure that.
Lord Reay: The Bill requires that persons will have to be able to show that they are fit and proper persons for a licence before one can be obtained. That will include a requirement that they are financially capable of carrying out their obligations. That is the central point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall have to think again about this matter. At present I am not convinced. Not only must those undertakers be capable but they must be forced to be capable of guaranteeing their obligations. I do not believe that what the noble Lord said goes as far as my amendment. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168 and 168A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 169:
Page 36, line 2, after first ("authority") insert ("after consulting the authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 169 on behalf of my noble friend Lady David, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 184. These amendments arise from the fact that Clauses 34 to 42 of the Bill replace Sections 5 to 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. They require waste disposal sites to be controlled by new waste management licences.
What now happens is that provision for appeal to the Secretary of State allows the Secretary of State to override the powers of the regulatory authority. We are not satisfied that that is the correct way to proceed. As the Bill is drafted the authority or the licensee do not appear to be able to make representations to the Secretary of State regarding the decisions being made. What we add to line 2 of page 36 in Clause 34 is the provision that those decisions be taken after consultation with the authority.
That means that a local council, as the waste regulation authority, could grant a waste management licence and include conditions regarding additional works to be done; in other words, similar to the proposals put forward in the amendment previously discussed. The other works to be done which the waste regulation authority could specify could include references to the keeping, disposal or treatment of non-controlled waste as well as controlled waste.
As I understand it, the Secretary of State will be able to impose certain standard conditions which should be included in any agreement. But there will be differences between individual licences. As the Secretary of State will not necessarily be in a position to understand the differences between individual licences, we believe that he should have a duty to consult the waste regulation authority so that he has the full information he needs to make any decision.
Similarly, Amendment No. 184, which also requires consultation with the authority, will mean that, although the Secretary of State may direct an authority in how to exercise its powers, he will not have to do so in ignorance. There may be local circumstances which are particularly relevant to the needs of the waste regulation authority. Since the waste regulation authorities should be directly accountable for their actions, the Secretary of State should be required to consult them and obtain full details of individual cases before exercising his powers of direction. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, explained, the amendments require that the Secretary of State consult with the authority concerned before issuing any directions. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and through him the noble Baroness, that should such a direction become necessary, it would be the result of considerable negotiation between the Secretary of State and the authority concerned. It is not the Secretary of State's intention to involve himself in the day-to-day business of licensing. That is for the
1120
waste regulation authorities. However, there have been isolated cases where authorities, despite the best endeavours of the Secretary of State or HMIP, have not acted in accordance with advice. This power to direct fills the gap where that occurs. It is not necessary to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the authority because he will in all cases have done so before reaching a decision to direct, and indeed the normal principles of administrative law would require that that happened.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot avoid being satisfied with the assurance that the normal principles of administrative law will ensure that there will be consultation. But I am slightly puzzled by some of the references made by the Minister. They appeared to indicate that disputes are likely to be between the authority and the Secretary of State rather than between licensees and the authority. I shall consider that between now and a later stage in the light of what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Nathanmoved Amendment No. 170:
Page 36, line 8, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State shall, at the beginning of each financial year publish a programme of the guidance papers he proposes to issue in that year.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 34(8) provides that waste regulation authorities shall have regard to the guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 170 relates to the giving of that guidance.
Over many years waste management papers have been issued which have indicated best practice in this field. They have had the purpose of improving and ensuring consistency of standards throughout the country. For many years those waste management papers were produced by the Department of the Environment. They were produced in substantial numbers between 1976 and 1981; during that period 22 were issued. There was then a falling off between 1981 and 1987, when only four were produced.
On the 25th January 1989 the then Minister for the environment, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, informed the Environment Select Committee of another place that it was envisaged that there would be four waste management papers produced per year. In 1987 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution was created and there was a controlled waste inspectorate within that organisation. Could the Minister say whether that has been abolished following the resignation of Dr. Rae or whether it still exists? I should also like to know whether HMIP will audit the performance of the regulatory authorities only in order to assist the Secretary of State in performing his obligation under Clause 65(1); that is, to ensure that proper standards are maintained.
At present it appears that HMIP will not be producing waste management papers. If that is correct, who will produce them if they are to be produced at all? In past years they have proved to be extremely useful, and indeed vital, to proper waste management control. There is much advantage

1121
in those who have hands-on experience in dealing with waste, those who are best equipped such as the inspectors and members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, carrying out the task rather than those involved with administrative matters in the ministry.
I therefore ask the Minister whether the controlled waste division within Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution still exists? If it does not, why has it been abolished? What is the future of the production of waste management papers, if indeed there is one? If there is not, what guidance will be given to which the regulatory authorities must have regard? I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: While I am sure it would be helpful to waste regulators and the industry to have advance notice of the programme of advice that the department intends to issue over a period, this advice will include the statutory advice provided for in the licensing provisions of the Bill. It may be of assistance at this stage if I say that it is our intention to provide the guidance necessary for the implementation of these licensing provisions so that they can come into force in early 1992.
While we undertake to make a full programme available in due course, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to make this a statutory requirement. Under those circumstances I hope the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will be satisfied by my undertaking and will not continue to press his amendment.
Lord Nathan: I must confess that I am dissatisfied with that reply. There is no indication as to the source from which this advice is to be derived. It seems to me, as I said, very unsatisfactory that the advice should be written by the administrative arm of the Department of the Environment. The Minister gave no indication as to whether the sector of HMIP will be charged with this task. It is a very unsatisfactory situation which is causing a great deal of concern not only among the regulatory authorities but among those who are charged with the duty of carrying out waste disposal functions. Therefore, I must consider what the Minister has said.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may intervene at this point in order to assist the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I can tell him that HMIP's responsibilities for controlled waste have been reorganised. The audit role has been transferred to the regional offices of HMIP. It is likely that HMIP will no longer produce waste management papers. That requirement is likely to be transferred to the Waste Management Technical Policy Group. I hope that that goes some way towards enlightening the noble Lord.
Lord Nathan: I thank the Minister for confirming my worst fears. However, he made a clear statement and for that I am grateful. It is a step backward to revert to the pre-1987 position under which those in charge of administration at the DoE should be responsible for the production of these papers.
1122
However, I am grateful for what the noble Earl said, so far as it went, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 36, line 18, after ("waste") insert ("in or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Grant of Licences]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 172:
Page 36, line 19, at end insert:
("(1A) For the purposes of this section, a resolution operative before the date of Royal Assent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall be treated as a licence.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will feel that this is a simple amendment. Its purpose is to avoid the need for re-applications under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The present position, as I understand it, is that if a local authority proposes that land which it occupies or intends to occupy should be used for the deposit of controlled waste it must pass a resolution specifying the conditions under which the land is to be used. That is what the 1974 Act stipulates. In practice, that usually follows the requirements of a site licence which would be needed if the application had been made by an outside body; so it is analagous, I suppose, to deemed planning consent.
The Bill proposes that existing licences will be transferred to become waste management licences under the provisions of the Bill. The assumption is that the provision will come into force before the creation of the waste disposal companies.
We heard from the Minister earlier this evening that there will be, in effect, transitional provisions which will make it unnecessary for the waste disposal contractors to be arm's length bodies until they have actually got themselves going. If that is the case, we need to ensure that the resolutions already made by the local authorities under Section 11 of the 1974 Act should be treated as licenses. I believe, and hope, that this is an unintentional omission from the Bill which the amendment corrects. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I am afraid that I may have to disappoint the noble Lord. Amendment No. 172 seeks to treat resolutions by local authorities in respect of sites operated by them as site licences for the purpose of Clause 35. Clause 74 of the Bill deals with the transition from the Control of Pollution Act to this Bill. It provides for existing waste disposal licences to become new waste management licences without the licensee having to re-apply from scratch.
This provision does not apply to sites operated under resolution of council for two very good reasons. First, local authority resolutions are often quite simply not effective tools for controlling operations at individual sites. It is not unheard of to have a blanket resolution covering several sites. These cannot simply be translated into new waste management licences. Each facility should have a

1123
separate licence dealing with all the matters that should be covered in a licence.
Local authority resolutions often simply authorise operations without the detailed conditions on operations that would normally be expected in any proper licence. Reports from HMIP have drawn attention to this fact and it is for that reason that we consider that they are not suitable candidates for straight transition into waste management licences.
Secondly, the operational activities of the authority will be transferred to arm's length local authority controlled companies. It is essential that these companies have full licences, just as any private sector company will operate under a full licence. However, the noble Lord may be worried about what will happen to the resolutions before the facilities are transferred to the companies. I can assure him that the resolutions will continue in force until such time as the companies are set up under Clause 31 of and Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The last phrase from the noble Lord is the assurance I was looking for. Of course when the arm's length companies have been fully established the question of continuing the previous local authority resolutions in the form of licences would no longer be relevant. Since I have the assurance that the local authority resolutions will continue as if they were licences until the arm's length companies are fully established —unless I have misunderstood the Minister —I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Lord Reaymoved Amendment No. 174:
Page 36, line 32, leave out ("1971") and insert ("1990").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, together with Amendments Nos. 175 and 176, update the cross-reference to planning legislation. Amendment No. 179, which is also in this group of amendments, meets the representations of local authorities that a period of two months is not long enough to consider the complexities of a licence application. This amendment increases the time limit to four months. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 36, line 36, leave out ("under section 94 of the said Act of 1971 or under") and insert ("is in force under section 192 of the said Act of 1990 or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 36, line 37, leave out ("is in force").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 177:
Page 36,line 48, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall in each year to which this section applies satisfy himself that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out by them of the duties under this section").
1124
The noble Lord said: Clause 35(3) provides for conditions under which the waste regulation authority may reject an application for a licence unless,
"it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person".
I am turning on its head the wording in the Bill which states that the waste regulation authority,
"shall not reject the application if it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person".
I do not believe that is the natural way the English language is used. I prefer to think of that provision the other way round. The subsection continues,
"unless it is satisfied that its rejection is necessary for the purpose of preventing (a) pollution of the environment; (b) harm to human health; or (c) serious detriment to the amenities of the locality".
What we are proposing in this amendment is that the Secretary of State shall be obliged to recognise the fact that the local authorities which are the waste regulation authorities are going to be involved in substantial expense in assuring themselves that the applicants are fit and proper persons and, as the amendment states,
"that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out by them of the duties under this section".
This has been foreshadowed by the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. That Act states in Section 5(3) that where appropriate planning permission is in force for the use of a site for waste disposal it is the duty of the authority not to reject —that is the way round which the legislation appears to prefer—
"the application unless the authority is satisfied that the rejection is necessary for the purpose of preventing pollution of water or danger to public health".
That means that the local authority has to assure itself that physical arrangements to contain pollution are in place. The current Bill proposes a major extension of the factors which may be taken into account. We thoroughly support those extensions. It is right that judgment will have to be made whether an applicant is a fit and proper person in accordance with Clause 71(3) of the Bill. We agree that the criteria as to whether a person is fit and proper should include whether he has been convicted of a relevant offence; namely, an offence against pollution legislation, and that,
"the management … will not be in the hands of a technically competent person".
Surely, that should be "the management will be in the hands of a technically competent person". That would be much better.
We also agree that,
"the person who holds or is to hold the licence has not made and either has no intention of making or is in no position to make financial provision adequate to discharge the obligations arising from the licence".
That seems the wrong way round.
There are a number of double negatives which appear in the Bill and I appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, to assist me. It is really getting out of hand. The point I wish to make is a very simple one. In order to make these investigations the waste regulation authority will be involved in very considerable expense which goes beyond the obligations under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

1125
The amendment makes the point that the Secretary of State shall be obliged to satisfy himself that the resources available are adequate for the purpose. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: This amendment is stating something which must be obvious to all noble Lords. If we are going to ensure that all those involved in this activity are fit to do so, then the people who are examining them in the first place must have sufficient resources available. Unless we can guarantee this type of provision there is absolutely no point in saying that we shall grant licences in the first place if one cannot check that they are going to be effective.
Lord Hesketh: Before moving on to the main burden of Amendment No. 177, I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, makes a very good point. Though my noble friend Lord Balfour did not rise in his support at that moment, I feel that all legislation would benefit from a simplified and rational approach to the English language. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree wholeheartedly with that suggestion and confine themselves entirely to one Division Lobby on the subject.
The amendment seeks to address the issue of resources for local authorities. This is the first occurrence of the question of resources for local authorities in this part of the Bill. The amendment seeks to ensure that waste regulation authorities will have adequate resources to carry out their duties of granting licences. Under the clause if a person wishes to apply for a licence then they must pay a fee to the waste regulation authority which will be prescribed under Clause 40.
This is only one of the several responsibilities the waste regulation authorities have for licensing: dealing with applications, transfer of licences, inspection and monitoring of sites, revocations and suspensions of licences and the surrender of licences. Some of these duties are new for the waste regulation authority. But new duties will be matched by the resources made available by new charges. We envisage that authorities will be able to recover 100 per cent. of the costs incurred when carrying out these regulatory functions.
What the scheme will not do will be to let the authority cover the costs of enforcement. By enforcement costs I mean the costs of tracing and prosecuting flytippers or other malfeasant. It would be wrong in principle for legitimate business to meet in their fees and charges the costs caused by cowboys.
The intention is to set a national charges scheme at a level which reflects the recommended efforts to be put into each of these activities. HMIP will be issuing detailed guidance on how authorities should discharge their regulatory role; matters such as the frequency of site inspections and the number and qualifications of inspectors to be employed. Based on that advice we shall assess how much a proper level of regulation should cost authorities. That assessed cost we shall then translate into a level of charges. I can asssure the noble Lord that there is
1126
no government interest in underestimating the costs of waste regulation nor in setting charges below those costs.
If authorities follow HMIP advice, as we all hope they will, the charges scheme will enable authorities to fully recover their costs of regulation. Those costs not met by the charging regime will continue to be met through the normal channels from the community charge and central government support.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, specifically referred to the question of checking that a licence applicant is a fit and proper person. I can assure him that that is part of the authority's work that will be covered by the charge for a licence application. We shall be setting a licence charge that fully reflects that fee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's answer goes some way to reassuring me. He introduced quite considerable qualifications into the general assurance that I was looking for that the cost of the additional activities imposed on local authorities would be covered. I am not satisfied that they are going to be covered by the charging mechanism. If I correctly understand the Minister's reply, he is not claiming that they will be covered by the charging mechanism. He is saying that in the end the charges will have to be covered by the community charge and grant mechanism.
The problem with that mechanism is that unless the grant formulae are so precisely and accurately calculated that they cover all the costs, because of the gearing between local authority and central government sources of income the community chargepayers pay £4 for every £1 extra expenditure that has not been anticipated by government. That cannot be satisfactory.
I shall give the Minister an example of the seriousness of the problem. The example is from West Yorkshire where, at the moment, there are 400 waste disposal licences. Around 50 new licences are granted each year. Fifty licences are surrendered. Under the new regime it will not be possible to surrender licences unless the regulation authority is satisfied that the necessary aftercare work has been done. There will still be 50 new licences but the 50 old licences will be surrendered only after a period of time.
Aftercare work for landfill sites can take 30 years. If gas emissions are being dealt with it is possible that there will be no surrenders for a substantial number of years. There will still be the new licences but it will not be possible for the old licences to be surrendered because no one can be satisfied for many years that the correction work has been done. In 30 years' time there will be the existing 400 licences plus potentially 1,500 new ones —a five-fold increase in the number of licences. That situation will take far more resources to monitor than the existing provision. And it will be impossible if not unjust —unjust, that is, for the new licensees —for that to be paid for entirely by the charges.
The Minister is not suggesting that it will be paid for by the charges. If he agrees that costs will fall on general local authority expenditure and therefore on

1127
the community chargepayer, what assurance will he give that the grant part of local authority expenditure will not be interpreted in such a way that the community chargepayer will pay very much over the odds for these new responsibilities?
Lord Hesketh: There are two points here. The first, as I stated earlier, is that the introduction of the charges should in the long-term be beneficial. Secondly, there is a slight assumption in the noble Lord's scenario that at present there are no responsibilities for local authorities and that they are not engaged in activities related to this subject. Of course, they are. The assumption is then made that anything from the past is not covered. I disagree. There is in existence waste which is already covered. We are improving the system for the future. The noble Lord is turning to the Government, not for the first time, and not for the first time during the proceedings on this Bill, and saying that this should be treated entirely as a separate issue even if it has an historical background.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Unusually for him, the Minister was not listening to what I said. I acknowledge the existing situation as part of the responsibilities of local authorities. But the example I gave of 400 licences, which were added to by 50 and subtracted from by 50 in each year, is the current situation. That adds up to 400 licences.
The example I gave from West Yorkshire took into account the new provisions of the Bill which means that a licence cannot be surrendered until the aftercare work has been done. That means in practice that the number of existing licences which have to be supervised and monitored will increase substantially over a period probably of 30 years. That is new responsibility and new expenditure. If the Minister is telling me that that will be covered by increased charges, how will he defend that? How can he defend the argument that, simply because aftercare on existing licences has to be a continuing responsibility, the new licensees, through the charges made on them, should be paying for it?
Lord Hesketh: I am in no position this evening to be able to judge the position in West Yorkshire. But I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord in the light of the remarks he has made and the example he has given and see whether I can satisfy his worries on that front.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that undertaking because it forms the basis on which perhaps he and I can meet between now and Report stage. We can then consider the extremely important issue of whether the resources available to the waste regulation authorities will be adequate for the purpose. On the basis that we have an opportunity for further negotiation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arranmoved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 37, line 3, after ("Authority") insert ("and the Health and safety Executive").
1128
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 177B to 177E, 180A, 180B, 181A, 225A, 226A, 232A and 236A to 236C.
This group of amendments brings the Health and Safety Executive into the waste management regime by making it statutory consultees on waste management licences. In future all new applications for licences and applications to vary them will be commented on by the Health and Safety Executive which obviously has a great deal to offer in the way of advice on the safe operation of any disposal facility for those who operate it and for the general public.
The later group of amendments to Clause 51 apply this provision to resolutions of council in Scotland which serve the same function as a waste management licence. I trust that this will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I hope that it will not be considered improper if I draw the attention of my noble friend to the fact that there are also occasions when the Nature Conservancy Council should be consulted. I do not at this juncture have an amendment to that end but I hope that I may be able to raise the matter at a later date.
The Earl of Arran: If my noble friend wishes to raise the matter at a later date, that is entirely his prerogative.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 177B to 177E:
Page 37, line 5, after ("Authority") insert ("or the Executive").
Page 37, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("Authority") and insert:
("(4A) If, following the referral of a proposal to the National Rivers Authority under subsection (4)(a) above,").
Page 37, line 15, at end insert:
("(ii) the Health and Safety Executive").
Page 37, line 22, after first ("authority") insert (", the Executive").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 37, line 29, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 182, 185 and 197. These amendments are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 197 introduces a new clause to replace and consolidate subsections in three previous clauses relating to making false statements in order to obtain a licence, a modification or a certificate of completion. There is no change to the provisions of the subsections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 37, line 36, leave out ("two") and insert ("four").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 180:
Page 37, line 42, leave out ("be deemed to have") and insert ("either grant the application or give written notice to the applicant that the authority has").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 181. They are related but not in fact connected. Amendment No. 180 is very largely a matter of courtesy. I suggest that when an individual or company has applied for an authorisation it is important that the person or the company is able to rely on a formal procedure either of acceptance or rejection. The Bill provides that if after a certain period, which is laid down in the Bill or otherwise agreed by the parties involved, there has been no response, it shall be deemed that the application has been rejected.
In my view, that is not a very courteous way of dealing with such matters and it is not really very helpful. If there is no written confirmation available, the application may well be rejected by default and the applicant is then quite uncertain as to what steps he should take. In other words, the formal procedure of acceptance or rejection should be entered into so that the company or the individual can adjust the business plans involved and decide upon the next steps which should be taken to take account of the results of that formality. In a way, that amendment stands on its own.
However, perhaps it would save the Committee's time if I were to deal now with Amendment No. 181. It is largely designed to make a small attempt at increasing the efficiency of the country's waste management systems. It seems to me that it is both logical and sensible that a waste disposal licence application should be considered concurrently with any related planning permission. A company may frequently want to apply for a waste management licence and enter a planning application simultaneously.
As matters stand at present under the Bill, a licence cannot be issued if the planning application has not been processed and approved. It seems to me —and I hope that Members of the Committee will accept this —that this is a waste of useful planning time and merely sets back the whole procedure.
Conditions as regards planning permission for waste disposal facilities can be, and most often are, environmentally related. They often dovetail with conditions on site licences, and although they may very well deal with operational factors they also cover the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred; namely the after care of the site. Some years ago we had some experience of this situation, largely on landfill sites where the after care was somewhat less than desirable.
In Wales, for example, where waste regulations operate at district level and where there are particular problems associated with parochial interests, separate consideration of planning and disposal site licence applications gives two opportunities for objections to be lodged, even though there is an overwhelming need for new facilities. I referred earlier this afternoon to the
1130
difficulties that obtain in Wales with regard to transportation. Therefore, Amendment No. 181, which deals with the concurrent application for site licences and planning consents, seems to me also to be fairly sensible and reasonable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I support my noble friend in his amendment. I do so because, I regret to say, very often in my part of the world the obtaining of planning approval for, let us say, the erection of a comparatively simple building can sometimes take as long as two years. If for once the two processes could work together, I think that we might well get something off the ground. There is much sense in what my noble friend said.
Lord Hesketh: I shall speak first to Amendment No. 180. This amendment would remove from applicants the protection currently contained in Clause 35 of the Bill, carried forward from the Control of Pollution Act. Under that clause, if the authority fails to take any action whatever in relation to the application the applicant is able to expedite matters by exercising his right of appeal in Clause 42. My noble friend's amendment would revert the situation to the status quo and would provide no redress against an authority which wilfully or negligently failed to do its duty. I should point out that in many cases the period is extended by agreement between the parties involved. This clause provides that if the authority delays long enough it is deemed to have rejected and the applicant may then appeal.
As regards Amendment No. 181, also tabled in the name of my noble friend, I must say that I can understand the reasoning behind it as it is a lot quicker if planning permission and an application for a licence are considered together as one. However, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary as there is nothing to prevent that from happening under the Bill. Planning permission must be in force before a licence is granted. However, planning permission does not have to be in force when a person makes an application for a licence. Therefore for all practical purposes an authority may consider, and any public inquiries may be held into, both a planning application and a licence application at the same time. For that reason, we resist these amendments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I shall have to consider most carefully what my noble friend the Minister said. As regards Amendment No. 181, I understood him to say that there is in fact an appeal procedure in Clause 42. However, I have just looked quickly at that clause and it appears to me that the appeal procedure comes into effect after the rejection. With respect to my noble friend, that is not the point I am addressing. I am addressing the possibility of a default which may occur as a result of there being no formal rejection of the appeal.
I ask my noble friend whether he will be good enough to give this matter further consideration. We are talking not only about a technical matter but about sheer courtesy. For example, the applicant could be told after two months, "Yes, your

1131
application has been accepted"; or alternatively he could be told, "No, I am afraid it has not been accepted". There may be changes in the staff involved and the diary may go adrift, thereby causing the default to occur. Therefore, I do not think that it has anything to do with the appeal procedure. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his support for Amendment No. 181. I should like to give further consideration to what my noble friend the Minister said about that amendment before deciding whether there is anything else I might want to do later.
Lord Hesketh: It is important to remember that appeals come in also on a deemed rejection. As a result there is a disincentive for the authority, because it then effectively loses control. There is a deterrent in fact.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for those added words. I do not believe that they help my case. I shall give further consideration to the matter. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 180A and 180B.
Page 37, line 43, leave out ("or to") and insert (", the Health and Safety Executive,").
Page 37, line 48, after ("Authority") insert (", the Executive").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Variations of licences]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 181A and 182:
Page 38, line 30, after ("35(4)") insert ("(4A)").
Page 38, line 41, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 183:
Page 38, line 44, leave out ("two") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady David. We have already discussed a deemed refusal after the time allowed for an appeal has expired. I do not disagree with the general thrust of the debate, which has been that, as far as possible, appeals should be speeded up. I have no objection to that wish. I have experienced delayed appeals in planning cases. They lead me to feel that every possible pressure should be put on local authorities to speed up their response to appeals and, in this case, to proposals for the variations of licences.
However, in this case there seems to be an argument which is worth airing: the burden on the waste regulation authorities of applications for variations of a licence, or the need to vary a licence, is much greater under the Bill than it was under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. What is now required
1132
is that the authority responsible for issuing licences should ensure that the activities authorised by the licence do not cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. That is much more difficult than the factors that had to be taken into account under the licence provisions of the 1974 Act.
Under those circumstances, it may be more reasonable to allow a period of four months before the automatic deemed refusal which would otherwise take place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said, we have already considered government Amendment No. 179, which allows authorities four months to consider a licence application rather than the previous two months. We are not persuaded, because most applications for modifications should be simpler than the initial application for a licence. There may also be an urgent need to modify a licence to meet changed circumstances, a reason that cannot apply to the initial application. If more time is needed, then there is provision for the parties to agree an extension. Failing that, I think it is reasonable after two months to allow the licensee to take his request for a modification to the Secretary of State on appeal. For those reasons we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that the result may be further delay. The requirement that there should be an agreement to extend the period may mean that agreement will not be achieved, and the appeal procedure which then becomes necessary because the application is deemed to have been refused will take longer than would have been the case if the four-month period had been granted.
I did not refer to government Amendment No. 179, which I believe supports the case for this amendment. My noble friend Lady David may wish to return to this matter at a later stage. I do not believe that she will object if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on her behalf.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Revocation and suspension of licences]:
Lord Laytonmoved Amendment No. 183A:
Page 39, line 9, leave out from ("affected") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is about the removal of provisions that 16 years of experience seem to have shown to be on the unworkable side. The wording of Clause 37(1)(b) and (c) continues the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Control of Pollution Act. Experience with that Act suggested that the revocation procedures under Section 7(4) were infrequently used, mainly due to the difficulty of establishing sufficient grounds for revocation.
For a successful revocation under both Section 7(4) and this clause, the WRA must show, first, that the continuation of the activities under the licence would cause pollution to the environment or harm to human health or be seriously detrimental to local amenity, and, secondly, that these problems cannot

1133
be overcome by way of a licence modification. I suggest that this clause is written in such a way as to be unnecessarily onerous on the WRA. This is the main reason that its identical predecessor of COPA Section 7(4) was infrequently used.
A licence revocation will undoubtedly be passed to the Secretary of State by the operator in the form of an appeal. In such an appeal, it should be sufficient for the WRA to establish that the continuation of the activities will cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health or would be seriously detrimental to local amenity. There is no need for the WRA to show that it could not modify the licence to overcome these problems.
However, if the Government would like some modification procedure inserted into Amendment No. 183B, it would give guidance to the WRA to consider modifying the licence prior to attempting to revoke it. I beg to move
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: These two amendments are most interesting in their parentage. While Amendment No. 183A can claim two progenitors, it was always quite clear that these parents had very different views on the future career of their offspring. I cannot accept either view of the existing subsection (1)(c) of Clause 37 and it will not come as a surprise to anyone that I am firmly of the opinion that the drafting is just right as it stands.
We cannot accept that it would be right for an authority to be able to revoke licences without making any attempt to solve the problems through modification of working practices through the licence. We therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 183A alone.
It is true that under the present drafting of subsection (1)(c) if the pollution cannot be dealt with in this manner, the authority may revoke the licence. This is what Amendment No. 183B seeks to achieve, but I must say that it does not seem to do so any more effectively than our present draft. That is why we resist the amendment.
Lard Layton: I feel that with that reply the Minister in some way agrees with me. Perhaps at a later stage if I bring forward an improved amendment he will agree with me even more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 183B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 183C:
Page 39, line 22, at end insert ("and may exercise its powers under section 58(3) below in relation to the land concerned").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 183C, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 246N. The issue here is again one of the resources available to local authorities, the waste regulation authorities, in performing the additional tasks placed on them by the Bill. When the revocation and suspension of licences are being considered, Clause 37 allows a waste regulation authority to revoke or suspend a licence if it believes that pollution of the
1134
environment or harm to human health may arise. We totally support that objective. If the licence is revoked, that does not remove the conditions which the authority specifies as continuing to bind the licence holder. That is what subsection (5) says, and we totally agree with it. It requires the licence holder to cease such activities as are damaging to the environment or to human health.
Amendment No. 183C is a paving amendment to Clause 58 which sets out particular duties of waste regulation authorities in regard to closed landfills. It applies to any land where a site licence is not in force. There are all kinds of duties involved: to inspect the land; to assess whether there are any concentrations of noxious gases, noxious liquids and so on. These would have to apply to any land where a licence has been revoked because there are continuing obligations.
It raises the question of whether the local authority, having these continuing obligations which do not necessarily bear any numerical relationship to the number of licences enforced, has the resources to perform those tasks. We need to be sure that it will have those resources. Further we need to be sure that it is not just a matter of what charges are imposed. It is clear from previous answers of the Government that the charges that are imposed are not adequate for some of the extra responsibilities of local authorities. We need to be clear that there will not be an additional charge imposed on community charge payers.
The Government are, after all, spending a considerable amount of time at the present moment trying to avoid losing an election because of the burden of the community charge —they are amending the Local Government Finance Act —which has been shown to be a burden through experience in Scotland and now in England and Wales. If the Government continue to put statutory burdens on local authorities which will involve them in additional expenditure but do not provide additional resources for them, they will compound the difficulty which they already find themselves in. It is in the interests of the Government and in the interests of all who, unlike me, wish to see the return of a Conservative Government, to agree to these amendments and to see to it that adequate resources are made available. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 183C seeks to ensure that where a licence is partially or totally revoked, the authority has the power to take action to prevent pollution or harm to human health. These matters are already taken care of in the Bill. Where a licence is partially revoked under subsection (3), the rest of the licence remains in force. The part that remains in force will include the part that requires the licensee to monitor the site and to take remedial action. Where a licence is revoked completely, it is no longer in force and so the provisions of Clause 58 which deals with the monitoring of closed landfill sites including those closed as a result of licence revocation, will automatically apply.
Amendment No. 246N seeks reassurance that the waste regulation authorities will be adequately resourced for their responsibilities, which are in this

1135
case the monitoring of closed landfills. I can give the noble Lord this assurance. The Government have nothing to gain from starving the authorities of the resources to do this important job. Indeed an additional £33 million in credit approvals has been made available in this financial year to help authorities who find a need to take action at old landfills but who do not have sufficent credit approval to finance the necessary work. The allocation of resources will be determined by the normal process of setting authorities' resource and expenditure needs each year by negotiation between the authorities and the department. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by those remarks and will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is certainly one point on which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and I can agree, which is that it is not in the Government's political interest to impose additional burdens on local authorities that will force them to put up the community charge next year or the year after. However, that is as far as I can go with the noble Lord. He reminds the Committee that a specific grant of £33 million was made in the current year. I can add that there was another grant of £5 million made available last year. However, the problems with that are twofold.
First of all it is not a direct grant. It is simply an authority to spend. The waste disposal authority will be faced with the usual requirements to meet loan repayments on any expenditure it incurs. Therefore the grant is not as simple and as generous as the noble Lord sought to imply.
Secondly, grants given in any single year or even over two years are simply not adequate to the purpose. I shall return to the example of West Yorkshire. The cost of providing bore holes there to monitor gas at landfill sites was more than £500,000. That covered the immediate expenditure on engineering equipment. It did not cover the cost of the monitoring equipment or the subsequent control equipment which will be necessary over a period of years. It is simply not good enough to say that to provide authority to incur the cost of the engineering work is the same thing as providing adequate resources over the period of years that the whole project will take.
If we take West Yorkshire as being in any way a typical local authority, the resources required over the whole of the country will be many millions of pounds, far in excess of the £33 million which has been authorised in the current year. The best estimate that I have is that we are talking of between £200 and £300 million, simply to make safe all the landfill sites which are emitting gas. To draw the analogy with the privatisation of water last year, the Government had to go to great lengths, because of the privatisation, to secure the financial interests of the new water companies by guaranteeing all of the expenditure that would be necessary on exactly analogous work. The clearing of gas from closed landfill sites is comparable to the work that is necessary to bring our water and sewerage undertakings up to the necessary quality.
1136
That expenditure will fall on the local authorities. The commitment that the noble Lord has given and the £33 million which has been authorised this year will go no way towards meeting the necessary demand. The Government are politically digging their own grave if they continue to place further statutory demands on local authorities without providing them with the resources. Inevitably, particularly because of the gearing, the community charge will go up next year and the year after, until we have abolished the community charge.
I leave the Government with that thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 183CA:
Page 39, line 24, at end insert:
("(4A) In any case in which a licence is revoked or partially revoked under subsections (3) or (4) above, the provisions of section 58(b) below shall apply.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 183CA, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ross, and also to Amendments Nos. 246GA and 246GB. Clause 36 allows a waste regulation authority to revoke or suspend a waste management licence for various reasons which lead it to believe that environmental damage may occur, with specific regard to powers of revocation. That may lead to a total revocation or partial revocation of the licence. In either event it is possible for the authority to specify requirements which continue to bind the licence holder.
Clause 58 places a duty on waste regulation authorities in respect of closed landfill sites. That duty applies to any land for which a site licence is not currently in force, and thus could be considered to apply to sites where a licence has been revoked. Clause 58(6) deals with the mechanism for a waste regulation authority to take action at a site where a licence is not in force. Where pollution of the environment or harm to human health is likely to be caused, it places the duty of regulation on the authority to carry out work to avoid such pollution or harm. In the case of a site where a licence has been revoked it will be clear that the operator and/or the land holder should have the first duty to make restitution for any pollution or harm which has been caused by them rather than the regulation authority.
The amendments seek to place the owner of the land under a duty to comply with the requirements of the regulating authority and to carry out any cleaning up work within a specific timetable. Only if that is not complied with will the regulation authority then do the work. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: What Amendment No. 183CA sets out to do is already taken care of in the Bill. What I said in respect of Amendment No. 183C applies also in this case. Where a licence is partially revoked under subsection (3) the rest of the licence remains in force. The part that remains in force will include the part that requires the licensee to monitor the site and to take remedial action. Where a licence is revoked completely, it is no longer in force, so the provisions of Clause 58 will automatically apply. I hope that

1137
that will reassure the noble Lord and that he will therefore not press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 246GA, 246GB and 246HA are on the subject of sites where there is no licence in force, either because the licence has been surrendered or because there never was a licence. Clause 58, which we shall debate later, provides for monitoring such sites and making them safe.
The procedure that the Government have adopted is to make the waste regulation authority responsible for such monitoring and remedial works. Amendment No. 246GA seeks to offer the alternative of requiring the owner to carry out works, except where the authority had issued a certificate of completion for the site. Under Amendment No. 246GB, the authority would be able to carry out the works itself only where the landowner had failed to do so and it could then, under Amendment No. 246HA, recover its costs.
Leaving aside the question of cost recovery, on which we have other later amendments, we do not believe that the landowner should be given the job of tackling gas and leachate problems on his land. This is not a simple case of clearing-up fly-tipped waste; under Clause 58, we are dealing with highly technical, specialised work to deal with underground gas migration and leachate. That is no work for amateur landowners. More than likely, the landowner of a closed site will no longer be the waste disposer who deposited waste and he is very unlikely to be technically equipped to arrange it. There must be no slip-ups on containing gas and leachate. We have therefore decided that all work under Clause 58 will be arranged by the waste regulation authority, which will have the necessary expertise. I hope that the Committee will agree that that is the only safe course and therefore that the amendments ought not to be accepted.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: Having heard what the Minister had to say, I am to a certain extent satisfied that the points are covered. However, I reserve the right to come back to the matter when I have read what he said and studied it at greater length. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Laytonmoved Amendment No. 183D:
Page 39, line 37, leave out first ("serious").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 183E, 183F and 183G, which deal with Clause 37(6).
Clause 37(6) refers to licence suspension as opposed to licence revocation. Licence suspension can occur for three reasons: first, on the grounds that the licence holder is no longer a fit and proper person; secondly, where serious pollution of the environment and serious harm to human health has been caused by a continuation of the licence; and, thirdly, where serious pollution of the environment and serious harm to human health will be caused by a continuation of the licence.
The words,
"serious pollution of the environment"
1138
are not used elsewhere in Part II. That is particularly notable as a disposal site licence should not be granted where "pollution of the environment" might occur, as stated in Clause 35(3)(a). Earlier in Clause 37, a licence can be revoked where "pollution of the environment" might manifest itself and a licence modification is not appropriate, as Clause 37(1)(b) makes clear. Similarly, it is a duty of the WRA to take the steps needed to ensure that licensed activities do not cause "pollution of the environment" and that the conditions are complied with under Clause 41(1). In none of those cases is the word "serious" used. It is used only in the circumstances of a licence suspension. Among other things, that sugggests that a more stringent test is needed to suspend a licence than is needed to revoke it.
Besides the interesting issue of whether suspending a licence is more drastic than revocation, a WRA can already revoke or modify a licence immediately under Clause 42(6) if:
"in the opinion of the authority it is necessary for the purpose of preventing or, where that is not practicable, minimising pollution of the environment or harm to human health".
Hence, there is already within the clauses on modification and revocation an option for revoking or modifying a licence which can have immediate effect, regardless of appeal.
It appears that the use of the word "serious" is superfluous now that "pollution of the environment" is defined in the Bill by Clause 29(3). The definition used in Clause 29 requires that a WRA must establish, first, that pollution has occurred; secondly, that it has occurred from controlled wastes; thirdly, that there has been a release or escape; and, fourthly, that the concentrations or quantity involved will be sufficient to cause harm to man or living organisms. This in itself appears to be a stringent enough test without further qualification. All four of these criteria must be satisfied before a licence can be revoked or modified under Clauses 36(2)(a) or 37(1)(b).
Finally, the use of the word "serious" suggests that, once a licence is granted and a certain level of pollution damage occurs, that level might not be sufficiently "serious" enough for the licence to be suspended. This is despite the fact, first, that if there was any likelihood of an identical level of damage occurring when the licence was being applied for a licence would not have been granted in the first place; and, secondly, that a WRA could readily use its modification and revocation procedures prior to "serious" pollution manifesting itself. This amendment deletes this word and brings the test for licence suspension to a similar level as licence modification and revocation. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I can understand the concern of the noble Lords in moving these amendments but let me once again try to reassure them that they are not necessary. The provisions of subsection (6) are for serious occasions. They take immediate effect without waiting for the outcome of any appeal. This is in complete contrast with the provisions for revocation. In the case of revocation (dealt with in Clause 37) the decision does not take effect

1139
immediately but is held in abeyance until an appeal is decided. If revocation is called for with immediate effect, the authority must issue a statement saying that the threat of pollution was serious enough to warrant immediate action.
In other words, the test of seriousness applies in both cases if the decision is to have immediate effect. It is not the case that the test for suspension is more stringent that the test for revocation, as my noble friend Lord Layton implied, or I think possibly feared. I am sure that it is right that this test of seriousness should apply where rights under a licence are to be withdrawn at a moment's notice. Therefore, I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Layton, must make his own decision, but I was convinced by what the noble Lord said.
Lord Layton: I think that my noble friend's argument was quite convincing. The immediacy of the effect is what is important in this case. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 183E to 184 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Surrender of licences]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 41, line 36, leave out subsection (9).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Fees and charges for licences]:
The Earl of Balfourmoved Amendment No. 185A:
Page 42, line 40, leave out ("from time to time by a scheme").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move these amendments on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gisborough because he is unable to be here this evening. I have studied what he seeks to achieve in this clause, and there is some merit in the proposed insertion of his subsection (2) in Amendment No. 185B. Clause 40 gives me the impression that the Secretary of State seeks to lay down standard fees and charges for every waste regulation authority. As the Committee will see, it is subject to the approval of the Treasury. However, the conditions in one county in England and Wales, let alone Scotland, can vary considerably from those in another county. One authority may have to travel many miles to make inspections, whereas the journeys in another county might be short. I do not believe that national standards can be set, because one authority could make a profit and another a loss. What makes the position worse is that the standards in one county might become much lower than in another.
The clause states that the Secretary of State may revise the scheme or alter the fees and charges for licences. But there is no provision for the different
1140
circumstances that are bound to exist between individual authorities. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): If the noble Earl was speaking also to Amendment No. 185B, I have to remind the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 186 to 191.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps I may speak briefly. In the light of the amendments that I shall move, Amendments Nos. 191 and 192, my noble friend Lord Balfour will readily understand that I cannot possibly agree with either of these amendments. They are rather ridiculous. When I move my amendments later, I shall explain why I consider them ridiculous.
Lord Hesketh: The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, are seeking to create complete discretion for local authorities to set their own charges. I fear that the Government cannot accept that. National identical charges are an essential pillar of our charging proposals, for reasons that I shall explain.
Schemes set by individual authorities would mean that the level of fees and charges would be different in each authority. Charges will be a part of the costs of waste disposal. If we were to let authorities set their own level of fees and charges the costs of identical waste disposal would be lower in some areas than others. Some authorities would become a cheaper haven for waste disposal than others. This we must not allow. It is a point reiterated by everyone who has investigated the subject of waste disposal. In other circumstances I would accept that the costs of waste regulation should be recovered by each authority to reflect their variations of efficiency. However, waste regulation is one area where we cannot afford any suggestions of cutting corners.
There is provision on the face of the Bill for revision of the scheme. We do not need to have on the face of the Bill that the scheme should be revised annually. I can assure my noble friend Lord Balfour that we shall revise the level of charges whenever it is warranted. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment on behalf of his noble friend Lord Gisborough.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful for the explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 185B not moved.]
The Earl of Arranmoved Amendment No. 186:
Page 42, line 44, leave out ("the making or).
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 186 and speak to Amendments Nos. 187 and 188. These are minor drafting amendments. They express more clearly the scope of the charging scheme under this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 187 and 188:
Page 42, line 45, leave out ("the making of").
Page 42, line 46, leave out ("consideration") and insert ("respect").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 188A and 188B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Reaymoved Amendment No. 189:
Page 43, line 3, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 189 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 190. Amendment No. 189 is a drafting amendment substituting the word "a" for "the" to bring the provision in line with the drafting of Clause 36 on modifications of licences.
Amendment No. 190 is more substantial and seeks to ensure that the costs of the National Rivers Authority are recovered in the charges for licences. The Government believe that it is right that the National Rivers Authority's costs should be reflected in licence charges.
The National Rivers Authority plays a very important role in the consideration of licence applications, modifications and surrender. Their costs can be substantial since there may be considerable monitoring work to be done to test whether the land is suitable for the proposed operations.
In this country we are fortunate that no public water supply has been lost through pollution from waste, as in many other countries. But I wonder whether "fortunate" is the right word. I do not believe that it is due to luck but to the existence of a legal framework stretching back over decades that has grown with the development of the waste disposal industry. The role of the water authorities in this process has been a central one and the National Rivers Authority will be carrying that forward.
The amendments achieve the same effect as Amendments Nos. 188A and 188B which appeared on the Marshalled List under the names of my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I am grateful to those noble Lords for withdrawing those amendments and allowing the amendments of the Government to proceed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 43, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) A waste regulation authority in England and Wales shall pay to the National Rivers Authority, out of any fee or charge which—

(a) is payable to the authority under a scheme under subsection (2) above; and

(b) is of a description prescribed in such a scheme for the purposes of this subsection,

such amount as may be prescribed in the scheme in relation to fees or charges of that description.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 181:
Page 43, line 18, leave out ("and different schemes may be made and revised for different areas.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is fairly obvious. The Bill permits different levels of charging for the issue and supervision of licences in different areas of the country. There can be no good waste-management reason for that. There may be other reasons of which I know nothing but there is certainly not any waste-management reason for the different charges on licences.
Waste is mobile and producers tend to seek the lowest price for disposal services. I suggest that if charges in licensing vary, it will distort the market and affect prices. We have already discussed how an operator may move waste from one site to another. In fact it could be counterproductive in terms of the use of the energy consumed by transporting waste into a cheaper area.
In effect I believe that my noble friend the Minister answered me when he spoke to Amendments Nos. 185A and 185B, which were moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour. He said that we have to maintain standards in this area and cannot possibly afford to cut corners. It seems to me that uniformity, certainly in the three major areas, is needed. In another place the Minister said that the term "different areas" in fact meant different countries. There is no reason —certainly not one that is apparent to me —why charges should differ in England, Scotland and Wales.
My last point with regard to this amendment was discussed under Amendment No. 164. If that is exactly what we mean, let us put it into the Bill and not use the rather loose and unhappy phrase "different areas" and so on. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My noble friend is quite right when he says that we have already discussed this issue at some length. The matter was discussed both at Committee stage in another place and previously in this Chamber under Clause 33. I can give my noble friend the assurance that it is intended to distinguish the constituent parts of Great Britain —England, Scotland and Wales —rather than any smaller regions. We envisage that one universal set of fees and charges should be set for England and Wales, with a different scheme for Scotland, to take into account differences in administrative arrangements.
My noble friend may well ask, "Why not in that case put on the face of the Bill 'England, Wales and Scotland'?" There are two simple reasons: first, because it is well established drafting practice and, secondly, because it would have significant effects for the drafting of all other government Bills, which parliamentary counsel's office seeks to resist. For those reasons I urge my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: There is no answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Nathanmoved Amendment No. 192:
Page 43, line 25, at end insert:
("(8) Fees and charges received by waste regulation authorities under a scheme made under the section shall be applied by those authorities towards the exercise of their functions under this Part.").
The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the power of waste regulation authorities to charge fees and other charges in order to cover their expenses. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the money received goes to the purpose specified.
First, there is no doubt on all sides of the Committee that the purpose of the charges fulfils the requirement relating to the polluter pays principle in that fees and charges will be reflected in the price of waste disposal and will be passed on to waste producers and their customers; and, secondly, that the intention is to provide financial resources for waste regulation authorities to carry out their functions. As I understand it, those will be set at a level to enable waste regulation authorities to cover their costs. These provisions are welcomed by the waste regulation authorities and the waste disposal industry generally.
The purpose is well set out on page xvii of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill, which states:
"Any additional costs arising from these enhanced control provisions will be more than offset by income from new charges for their administrative and enforcement costs".
Therefore, the purpose is clear: those charges and fees will go to finance the waste regulation authorities in their tasks.
The question is whether those fees and charges will be spent for that purpose, bearing in mind that the waste regulation authorities, except for one in England —the London Waste Regulation Authority —are local authorities with other more substantial responsibilities. The local authorities are under continual pressure in relation to expenditure and it is all too well known that they have difficulty in meeting the requirements imposed upon them. That has been shown in recent weeks and months in relation to the poll tax, charge capping, and so on. In those circumstances it will not be surprising if a waste regulation authority, in its capacity as a local authority, needs to consider the priority it gives to its waste regulation functions in the context of its many other activities.
Despite that function being apparently self-funding it would be possible to skimp on standards of inspection and use the funds raised for some other perfectly honest purpose under the pressure of events. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister how he proposes to ensure that the funds raised by the waste regulation authorities are expended on the waste regulation function unless some such provision as is contained in this amendment is put into the Bill.
The position would be entirely different if the waste regulation authorities were single-purpose authorities because there, clearly, the charges and fees obtained must be applied for that single purpose. The difficulty arises from the fact that they have extensive functions. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I sympathise with the intention underlying this amendment, although I have to say at once that I cannot accept it.
These charges, like others for pollution control, are essentially intended as charges to recompense local authorities for the services they offer to licensees. We envisage that charges will make extra resources available to local authorities. None of this is yet settled in any detail. We have yet to draw up a detailed charging scheme, on which we shall of course have to consult the local authorities and the Treasury.
The idea is that local authorities may apply the income from charges to their waste regulatory work. But that is different from saying that they shall spend it on waste regulation, as the amendment would require. We do not generally prescribe in such detail to local government how much must be spent on a function. Moreoever, it would be dangerous to set in tablets of stone any suggestion that authorities should regulate according to their income from charges. Well-intentioned floors on spending have a way of becoming targets or even ceilings. Although there will be a rough equivalence between charges and costs, adjusted to the costs involved in different types of site, the very fact that we shall have a national scheme will guarantee that there is no exact match between charges and needful expenditure in any one authority. Nor will absolutely all types of waste regulation expenditure be recovered by charges; notably, we shall exclude the costs of enforcement work, prosecutions and the like.
Having said all that, I endorse the view that more regulatory effort is required by many authorities. This is not just a question of financial resources, but also of the priority and status of waste regulation within authorities. We shall be pressing, via HMIP, to ensure that that is forthcoming.
Perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, back to the earlier part of my argument regarding his proposal to separately ring fence. In fact it is part of the income stream for a local authority.
Lord Nathan: I thank the Minister for his response and am cheered by the fact that he is taking seriously the question of adequate financing of the waste regulation functions of the local authority. It would be a misfortune if in one waste regulation authority area, or perhaps in all, the economic pressures were such that the charges imposed on the licensees were applied for other purposes and the standards intended to be achieved were not achieved because sufficient money was not applied. Unfortunately there are other instances where that has happened. I hope that that situation will not arise, and, in that belief and hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 [Supervision of licensed activities]:
The Earl of Arranmoved Amendment No. 192A:
Page, 44, line 20, leave out ("and (10)") and insert (",(10) and (11)").

1145
The noble Earl said: In a splendid show of unanimity, I am pleased to move Amendment No. 192A along with my noble friend Lord Layton and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. This simply corrects an accidental omission from the list of provisions of Clause 37 which are relevant when a licence is suspended under Clause 41.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since we have had so little success in making any changes to the Bill so far, we must express our appreciation to the Government for at the very least coming to the same sensible conclusion as ourselves.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Appeals to Secretary of State from decisions with respect to licences]:
Lord Reaymoved Amendment No. 193:
Page 44, line 33, after ("modification") insert ("of the conditions").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 193 makes clear that it is the conditions attached to a licence that are modified rather than the licence itself. Amendment No. 194 makes clear that a licensee may appeal against revocation under Clause 41 as well as under Clause 37.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 44, line 38, after ("37") insert ("or 41").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmontonmoved Amendment No. 195:
Page 45, line 8, at end insert:
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall determine any matter falling within subsection (1) above which is referred to him on appeal within a period of 6 months").
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 195 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. As those who follow these matters will see, the purpose of the amendment is to test the speed of appeals. The amendment seeks to limit the time spent by the Secretary of State in determining appeals.
All Members of the Committee here tonight will have had experience in planning and regulatory matters. They will understand that the appeals procedure is important, in fact crucial, to the good order and discipline of any regulatory system. The system we are putting in train here is no exception. I quote to the Committee an extract from the second report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, which dealt with toxic waste. I know that this is emblazoned on the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. Paragraph 189 reads:
"The DoE has also been much criticised for its failure to process appeals efficiently. WDAs told us of waiting two years for decisions on appeals on alteration to or revocation of site licences. This is quite unacceptable. During this time the operator can continue to practise as before and the site may even be filled up before determination of the appeal by the Secretary of State".
To give a further example, there is currently a site in West Yorkshire where the appeal is still effectively unresolved after four and a half years. The AMA drew these matters to my attention and, as the Minister knows, could give us many more illustrations without too much embarrassment to him, because this is no criticism of him but of the system.
In a Bill which is designed to strengthen environmental protection, any damage which is done to the environment can be exacerbated if there is a lengthy period for appeals. If such delay is permissible it flies directly against the intentions of the Bill. Given that there will be the need to scrutinise all existing licences and ascertain whether they meet the newer and more stringent requirements of the Bill, as well as to apply these criteria to any new applications for licences, it will inevitably mean that there will be more rather than fewer appeals in the future. In the best interests of environmental protection there is an urgent need to ensure that the appeals mechanism is handled more efficiently and effectively than has been the case to date.
The National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors has drawn my attention to its frustrating experience in this matter. It says that there is no doubt that the new, more complex arrangements for licences will significantly increase the number of appeals. It is obvious that there should be statutory pressure to maintain a properly resourced appeals department. We are told that the funding of the appeals department that will come into being, or be expanded, as a result of this Bill is parsimonious in the extreme. Therefore, I very much hope that the
1148
Minister will have something helpful to say on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I have to say at once that I have every sympathy with the purpose of this amendment and if it were a realistic possibility I should be delighted to accept it. Of course, we all want appeals to be determined quickly. I accept that my department's record has not been of the swiftest but legislating in this way is not going to help unless it is a practical proposition to deliver appeal decisions, without exception, within six months.
It is worth remembering that the department is the place of last recourse on delayed decisions. We have provided in the Bill that, if a case is sufficiently delayed at the stage of application to a local authority, then it is deemed to have been refused and the case then may come to the DoE on appeal, as I pointed out on an earlier amendment. The buck then stops. However difficult or time-consuming, the matter has to be settled by the department.
There are good reasons and bad reasons why appeals can often take a long time to determine. The good reasons are the often complex technical issues which are at stake, the need for expert site inspections and the paramount requirement that each party must be given every chance to make its case and to respond to points made by the opposing party. The bad reasons are that all too often one or even both parties procrastinate, delay submitting crucial material and fail to respond to chivvying. I am afraid that such delays are the bane of any judicial or quasi-judicial process.
We are doing our best to speed the process and to inject more urgency into the parties to an appeal, but it is not within the realms of possibility that such cases can always be determined within six months or any other arbitrarily set deadline. I hope that, having made his point, the noble Lord will not feel obliged to press this amendment further.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In a spirit of mutual understanding, I am grateful for the Minister saying that he would love to do what is asked but he cannot. I am inclined to agree. He knows the realities of the situation far better than I. They are such that I fear what he has said is substantially correct. He knows that very often the reason why matters reach the department is because of delays at a local level which, in my experience, could be obviated.
The Minister knows of the manner and speed by which local councils are willing and able to determine matters and that that rests substantially on the number of qualified staff they have. The Minister knows that those in his department and others who watch over manpower have persistently over the past 10 years driven down the number of qualified people available to planning departments and able to do a great deal of work. I have lost count of the number of examples in my own council at Enfield which I do not believe is exceptional. The local newspaper is studded with illustrations of matters that could have been resolved earlier but, because of the weight of work, have not come before the council.

1149
The Minister tells us that the situation is difficult. Will he confirm that he understands the consequences of that difficult situation? In terms of improving the environment some of the consequences will be very serious. It is not just a question of waste disposal. There is the question of delay in obtaining permission for an extension to a house or putting a swimming pool in the garden. The consequences will also affect a business which may want to build a new warehouse.
The Minister said that he understands the general situation concerning the appeals procedure. I fully support the raison d'être of the appeals procedure. For example, in my local area of Enfield arguments occur when appeals go to the Minister. That is not to the liking of some appellants. They strongly object that the decision is made in Marsham Street whereas it should be made in the civic centre. I am a firm upholder of the rights of an appellant to appeal against a decision of the local council. By and large, local councils change and a different attitude may appear according to the political complexion.
Though Ministers change, by and large I do not think anyone impugns the integrity or the honesty of the ministry as such in trying to resolve such matters wholly objectively. The Minister has told us that he understands the problem. He would love to solve it but this is not the way to do it. Would he care to tell the Committee how the problem can and will be solved?
Lord Hesketh: I think the noble Lord has made a remarkable omission. Many local authority officials around the country would tell him that increasingly planning committees take a very different view to that recommended to them by their officials. It is a growing problem at Marsham Street. It has nothing to do with the resources of central government. It is the reality of a presumption against development in all its facets. That is human nature. I do not believe that the noble Lord expects me to put amendments in the Bill to legislate for human nature.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am intrigued by the Minister's assertion that more frequently now than before elected councils disregard the advice of their officers. That is one of the reasons why matters go to appeal. In effect the Minister is saying that if councils took the advice of their officers matters would not go to appeal: that is to say, that which is requested would be granted. That is not my experience. In general, council officers look at these matters objectively. In my view, invariably local
councillors take the advice of their officers. Why is it realistic for the WRA to determine a licence within two months—we heard that in an earlier reply—when it is not realistic for the Department of the Environment to determine appeals within six months? If the WRA has to determine within two months the basis for giving a licence, which means that it has to take into account various matters, why is it not reasonable for the department to determine an appeal within six months?
Lord Hesketh: I feel that I can make little extra useful contribution to the matter apart from pointing out to the noble Lord that we are talking about two entirely different matters.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am surprised not only by what the Minister has said but by the tone of what he has said. I am talking about the time it takes to determine a matter that needs to be arbitrated upon. I get the drift of the Minister's temper. I do not want to exacerbate it. He has been as helpful as he can during the evening. I shall try to help him over the next period of the Committee stage by withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmontonmoved Amendment No. 196:
Page 45, line 50, at end insert:
("(9) Within three months of the end of each financial year, the Secretary of State shall publish a report giving details of appeals under this section determined during that year, including the dates the appeals were made and the dates of determinations, and the number of appeals outstanding at the beginning and end of that year.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Nicol. With it we want to see a regular public scrutiny of the extent to which the appeals system has been working. The public is entitled to be privy to progress on the appeals system. The amendment would provide a useful opportunity for public scrutiny of the way the appeals procedure is working.
The Minister will recall that in another place the Government amended the Bill to allow appeals to be decided by a person appointed by the Secretary of State. It would be helpful to know why that change was made and how the Government see the appeal process working. I can assure the Minister that these matters are important to little people and big people alike. But I am inclined to believe that they are more important to those who are interested in good government. They are interested not only in the appeal system itself but also in how it works. I can assure the noble Lord from my experience in many spheres that there is a keen interest in knowing exactly what goes on. The noble Lord knows that from time to time league tables are produced to enable Ministers to crack the whip and make local councils speed up the manner in which they resolve the generality of their planning applications. From my experience the local public is genuinely interested in the progress of these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: I understand the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to have information available on which the performance of the department may be judged. But there is no problem here. It is not necessary to import the notion of a statutory annual report as a means of eliciting the really quite few figures which are required. A Question in this Chamber or in another place would be equally effective and economical. As my honourable friend the Minister of State said in

1151
another place, we are always willing to give such information to Parliament on request. We can do no more.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wonder whether the Minister is really saying that unless the information is requested it will not be published or provided. I have joined in—as I am sure the noble Lord did before he became a Minister —in the very useful parliamentary exercise of tabling Questions in order to elicit information.
The Minister said that in future if people want this information they will be able to obtain it by asking for it rather than taking the proposed route. He said that they will be able to ask how many appeals were heard, how many are outstanding and so on. However, it is not just the bare statistics that we are interested in; we are interested in the defence of the Minister and the ministry as to why there have been inordinate delays, if in fact there have been any such delays. Can he tell us why they believe that good government rests upon the procedure of requests for information rather than their being willing to publish the information on a regular basis?
Lord Reay: Parliament provides not just an occasion for giving figures; there are also opportunities to put further questions. The information with regard to appeals does not amount to a great number in this case. For example, in the year ending 30th April 1990, 10 appeals were determined. That is the order of information which we feel is suitable to be dealt with through Questions in Parliament.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Regarding the period during which 10 appeals were determined, can the Minister tell us how many remain outstanding? But if he does not have that information I can understand why, and I am not making any imputations. It is as important to be told how many appeals were submitted and remain outstanding, as it is to be told how many have been determined.
There is no ulterior motive in requesting this report. It is not a stick with which we are trying to beat anyone. This is a genuine altruistic desire on the part of those who are affected by the appeals procedure to know how it is working. Although the Minister said that there may not be much interest in the matter, in some quarters it is vital for people to have this information.
I rest the argument for this amendment on the fact that Parliament is entitled to know how a machinery of government to which it is party is working. Does the Minister have any further information on the matter?
Lord Reay: I can answer the noble Lord's question. The number of appeals outstanding as at 30th April 1990 was 52.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Fifty-two outstanding appeals, compared with the 10 which were
1152
determined, puts the whole matter into context. I do not know how long those appeals have been outstanding and I do not know how quickly they will be dealt with. But it is not good enough when we have to drag information out of a Minister, as has been demonstrated by the proceedings of the past 10 minutes. It would be much simpler for the Government to be under an obligation —there is the rub —to produce a report. However, it is quite clear that this Government are not willing to do so. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 197:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
("Offences of making false statements
A person who, in an application for a licence, for a modification of the conditions of a licence or for the surrender or transfer of a licence, makes any statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or both.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Collection of controlled waste]:
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 198:
Page 46, line 21, after first ("in") insert:
("(a) the case of waste deposited unlawfully by a commercial operator at a civic amenity site; or
(b) in").
The noble Lord said: I am moving this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport. The purpose of it is to overcome a fairly widespread problem; namely, the fact that civic amenities are often used for the deposit of what is effectively commercial waste. The problem usually arises from such activities as house clearances or garden waste clearances which are undertaken by small businessmen. These often create a certain amount of waste which is effectively commercial waste. The waste is then deposited in a civic amenity and it should be charged for. I suggest that the amendment would go some way towards dealing with the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 198 would impose a duty on contractors operating civic amenity sites to make a charge for waste deposited unlawfully at their sites by commercial operators. Operators already have the power to charge for commercial waste deposited at their sites. Indeed, apart from a requirement that they should not charge for household waste operators are free to decide on their own charging policies. I am also concerned that the amendment may give rise to the belief that it is acceptable unlawfully to deposit waste at a civic amenity site provided that you pay the operator of that site. Let me make it clear that sites must accept only the waste that they are licensed to accept. There can be no question of site operators being paid to

1153
accept waste unlawfully deposited. It is the operator's responsibility to prevent such deposits, not to charge for them.
Lord Addington: I should have thought that the amendment was straightforward and innocuous. I should like to read carefully what the Minister said before deciding the eventual fate of the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Receptacles for household waste]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 48, line 11, leave out first ("receptacles or").
The noble Earl said: The peculiar reading of line 11 is the result of a misplaced amendment in Committee in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: We are again indebted to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his sharp-sighted detection of some unnecessary repetition, and I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 [Receptacles for commercial or industrial waste]:
Lord Hamptonmoved Amendment No. 200:
Page 49, line 8, after ("receptacles"), insert ("of a kind and number specified").
The noble Lord said: I speak to Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 which are in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra. There is a printing error in Amendment No. 201, which should read:
"The kind and number of receptacles",
instead of "land".
In Clause 44, which deals with receptacles for household waste, the words of the amendment are used:
"The kind and number of the receptacles required … shall be such only as are reasonable but, subject to that, separate receptacles or compartments of receptacles may be required to be used for waste which is to be recycled and waste which is not".
That includes in the Bill the option of requiring a householder to separate different waste materials for recycling. However, there is no such requirement in the Bill in respect of the provision of receptacles for commercial and industrial waste. That can be viewed only as a missed opportunity in the promotion and encouragement of recycling from commercial and industrial premises. There is considerable potential for the recycling of waste from commercial and industrial premises. An example is high-grade office paper for which, unlike low-grade newspaper, demand currently exceeds supply.
The amendment extends the enabling power of local authorities under which they can require householders to separate waste for recycling to commercial and industrial premises. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: This is a constructive amendment. We have much sympathy with its aims. Clause 44 already provides for mandatory separate collection systems for recyclable materials in the case of domestic waste. The amendment would extend that provision to cover commercial and industrial waste. There is, however, a crucial difference between the regimes for collecting domestic waste, on the one hand, and commercial and industrial waste, on the other. In the case of domestic waste, the collection authority has a duty to collect free of charge. In the case of commercial and industrial waste, the collection authority collects at a reasonable charge and only if requested to do so. Waste producers often choose to make alternative arrangements, usually with private sector contractors.
On some industrial estates, for example, a large proportion of the waste produced is collected by private contractors. Then again, some waste producers may use the collection authority for part of the time or for some types of waste collection and not others. It would therefore be difficult and possibly unfair to waste producers to impose a mandatory system. On the type of industrial estate that I have mentioned, waste producers could, for example, have customised receptacles foisted on them by the council which would then remain empty.
However, there is nothing to stop a collection authority from organising a recycling scheme for industrial and commercial premises and offering a collection charge rebate to those firms that co-operate with it by using differentiated waste receptacles. We think that that is the right approach. It gives a financial incentive to companies to benefit the environment. This is something that we wish to encourage. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As so often happens, the concluding words of the Minister indicated that the proposal had some merit but that it was not the way to do it. The noble Lord then went through, quite reasonably and realistically, what the position was. He came up in the end with the way in which the burden of complaint in the amendment could be tackled.
I wonder whether he would care to tell us, in addition to giving encouragement, how he means to encourage the form of solution which he put to the Committee to make it effective. He knows that if there is nothing statutory or laid down, if it is just left to the initiative, energy or imperative of different people, disparate situations will arise. The Minister might say, "So be it. If one local authority or waste authority is more efficient and innovative than another, the people served by it are entitled to be advantaged. Those who are badly served by an authority that is a bit of a stick-in-the-mud will have a poorer service".
I have a high regard for the ingenuity not just of the Minister but of the civil servants who serve him well. Of course they can come up with good ideas. However, I should be grateful if, when the Minister responds at another stage to a similar amendment, he will tell us not merely how he believes that the

1155
problem could be tackled but to what extent he and the ministry will put their money where their mouth is.
Lord Reay: There is a great deal that I could say on the subject of recycling. It is the Government's wish that it should be encouraged and various steps have been taken in that direction. I can announce that the Secretary of State has agreed that the Department of the Environment will pay a premium for recycled paper for office use. I am sure that the noble Lord will be interested to hear that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am interested, but it is difficult to steer the course I wish. The problem is not that the Minister or the ministry are doing something that is not laudable. The question is how energetic, positive and dynamic the ministry is in carrying out its remit.
From my experience in other quarters and in another place I understand that often the recycling system grinds to a halt because it is subject to the market. There are times when the need or the demand for paper to be recycled is phenomenal. I have had experience of authorities which have been persuaded by all kinds of pressures, not least from their own residents, to spend money. Then with a full heart they can allocate resources and separate their paper, bottles and metals and have them properly dealt with. However, enormous capital sums must be spent by the local authority to do that.
Then there is a change in the supply of paper or a shortage of wood and before the authority knows where it is it has a white elephant. Other local authorities party to the system find an escape clause and get out of the contract. People with a genuine desire to improve the environment and diminish pollution find that they have a problem.
The Minister could use this opportunity to do something other than tell the Committee what should be done, what could be done and even what the ministry is doing in a small way. Unless the ministry gets excited —one has to try to envisage the DoE getting excited over something —about this matter and becomes willing to spend as much time and money on it as it does on many other things, sadly, it will be far too easy for people to decide that their effort is not worth it or appreciated. The Government have provisions for litter collection but there must be a regular, persistent and programmed expenditure of time and money to give people encouragement in this matter.
Sadly, people are careless and dirty in their habits. It is not just a matter of individuals being dirty but of the way in which our communities look after our cities and towns. We are talking here primarily about industrial and commercial waste collection. There is a great job to be done which I do not envisage the Government doing in encouraging the packaging industry, the paper industry and many other industries to work together. I have attended conferences and have heard of initiatives that have been taken. I can appreciate that tempers are getting short in this respect. I shall sit down now and listen to what the Minister has to say.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: There is general agreement about the importance of improving the United Kingdom's performance in the recycling of waste. The aim is to recycle half of our recyclable domestic waste by the end of the century. This would mean something like a tenfold increase in recycling overall. That kind of increase can only be achieved by a combination of measures. We think that, first of all, it is necessary for manufacturers to design recyclability into their products to cut down on the amount of unnecessary packaging and to price recycled products competitively. I think that deals with the point that the noble Lord raised.
Secondly, consumers must know about and choose recycled products and must make use of recycling facilities provided by local authorities, retailers and voluntary groups. Thirdly, local authorities and retailers must substantially increase their commitment to providing recycling facilities so that the majority come up to the standard of the best. Fourthly, the Government must create the right waste management framework for an increase in recycling through measures in this Bill and through our support for innovative experiments, such as Recycling City in Sheffield, which will help identify and apply best practice in waste collection and recycling techniques.
We are completely committed to recycling as a long-term goal to which a great deal of energy must be devoted. I am sure there is no difference between us on that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I appreciate that the mover of the amendment will have something to say but I should say that I am grateful to the Minister and to his aides for providing me with clear evidence of the will of the Government to do something. However, I should tell the Minister that it is a thankless task because there are millions of people outside the Chamber who do not care tuppence about implementing the practices that the Minister and many other responsible people want to see implemented. I wish the Minister well and wish him success in the Government's initiatives, including the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Hampton: I thank the Minister for his explanations. However, we need to consider the matter further, particularly after the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to see whether we shall return to it at a later stage. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 201A:
Page 50, line 28, at end insert ("in accordance with any plan drawn up under section 48 below").

1157
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 201A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 211A, 216A, 216B, 216C, 217A, 218A, 218B, 218C, 219A and 219B. The amendments are all concerned with the tangled relationship which the Bill establishes between the waste collection authorities, the waste disposal authorities and the waste regulation authorities. Clause 46 is concerned with the duties of the waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected. Clause 48, to which the bulk of the amendments refer, is headed:
"Waste disposal plans of waste regulation authorities".
Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 the system was by no means as complicated as that which is proposed in the Bill. Under Section 2 of the 1974 Act the waste disposal authorities, which are really the only authorities concerned, were required to produce plans. They were given powers to collect the information necessary to make decisions to ensure that adequate facilities were provided and were required to produce and revise a waste disposal plan. Most of them have done so. I believe that the idea has got around that that has not happened. But, certainly in the metropolitan areas, the waste disposal authorities have produced plans and have attempted to enforce them.
Under the present Bill, there is a much more complicated system. The waste collection authorities have to produce plans for recycling. The waste regulation authorities are supposed to produce waste disposal plans. It seems to us that that provision is a misunderstanding of the role of the waste regulation authorities. I remind the Committee that the waste regulation authorities are intended to be policing and licensing agents. Therefore, there is no good reason why the waste regulation authorities should know how waste arises. They know about the disposal of waste and about adherence to the conditions that they lay down, but much of the detailed information required for the production of waste disposal plans is, not surprisingly, available in the first instance to the waste disposal authorities. Is there any good reason why those who are not responsible for waste disposal but, on the other hand, are responsible for policing and licensing, should be responsible for producing the plans? Surely it should be the operators, those who are actively responsible in an executive capacity, who should have the responsiblity for producing the plans.
To anticipate the Government's response, the only argument that we can see against such a logical procedure would be that it might be thought that the size of the waste disposal authorities was too small because they are linked to local authority areas. However, under those circumstances there could very well be a grouping of authorities for the purpose of producing plans. There is no need for statutory provision for that; it would arise out of common sense. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I am a little apprehensive about the proposal. The noble Lord referred mainly to urban areas. However, in the case of scattered, rural areas, it would be very difficult for the authorities to co-ordinate plans. The transport costs would be
1158
enormous. The noble Lord must consider rural areas as well as his urban areas.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder whether the noble Lord has fully understood the purport of the amendment. It does not relate to a shift in responsibility for executive action. What is proposed is a shift in responsibility for making the plans from the regulatory body to the body which is responsible for carrying out those plans.
Lord Burton: I appreciate that. I was referring to the plan. Many of the authorities in rural areas are miles apart: it is impossible for them to put together a co-ordinated plan. It would involve a great deal of extra expense. And the noble Lord has just complained that the Bill will result in extra expense. This proposal would add even further expense.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may be able to help the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Amendment No. 201A essentially concerns the relationship between the plans or policies adopted by the the three tiers of authorities —the waste collection, waste disposal and waste regulation authorities. It gets at a fundamental issue. There is no point in each authority going its own sweet way and making elaborate plans without regard to the plans of the two other tiers of authority.
That is why we specifically provide in Clause 48 for consultation of waste collection authorities by waste regulation authorities. Nonetheless, we must ensure that the various plans are properly co-ordinated and we are happy to undertake to look once again at this and to return to the matter at a later stage if necessary.
The group of amendments aims to transfer responsibility for the preparation of waste disposal plans from regulation to disposal authorities. With respect, I feel that this aim is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of the new disposal plans. In the past, disposal plans have tended to concentrate on the disposal of household waste at local authority sites. They have been operational documents for the benefit of the authority compiling them. That was never the purpose of disposal plans and we are taking this opportunity to move away from such plans.
In future, disposal plans will record patterns of waste arisings and disposal. They will detail the existing disposal options available and identify the type and capacity of new facilities which will be needed to deal with future waste arisings. In that way they will guide the investment decisions made by waste disposal companies, both local authority and private sector alike. The new disposal plans will cover all types of waste, not just household waste.
The regulation authority will be able to set out in the plan its policies of waste management and recycling, among other things. The role of disposal authorities will be to use the disposal plan to guide their decisions about signing contracts. In that way they will be like any other large waste producer.
We are convinced that the duty to prepare disposal plans should rest with the regulation authority and

1159
not with the disposal authority. We therefore cannot accept this group of amendments.
Amendments Nos. 216A, 216B and 218B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are minor drafting amendments which, again, we are unable to accept. Although the amendments contain nothing that is wrong, they add nothing to the Bill and are therefore unnecessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened with close attention to what the noble Earl has said. He has not convinced me that the programme of planning which the Government propose for those different tiers of authority has been fully thought out. The point that particularly concerns me is the technical word "arisings" of waste which the noble Earl used. It seems to us that the information which is least likely to be available to the Waste Regulation Authority is the way in which the waste arises —in other words, the origin of waste, whether it be household, commercial or industrial waste. To that extent, I am afraid that we are in danger of having a planning process which is too far removed from the process of executive action and from the information that is available to those who do the work. However, I see that the Government are determined about this procedure. We shall have to look at what the noble Earl has said and see whether there is any scope for further amendment at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 50, line 32, at end insert ("; and the authority shall have regard, in deciding what recycling arrangements to make, to its waste recycling plan under section 47 below.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend, ensures that waste collection authorities take account of the policies that they have set out in their waste recycling plans when they exercise the power to recycle waste conferred by this subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 203 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 203A:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to minimise controlled waste
. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, and of each waste collection authority and waste regulation authority to promote polices and prepare programmes and targets for waste reduction, recycling, re-use and recovery, with the intention of minimising the amount of controlled waste which is destined for disposal").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 203A. I apologise that I shall be slightly longer than one might wish at this time of night but this is a most important amendment because waste reduction through recycling is pivotal to the success of any rational, sensible waste dispoal policy. I shall dwell on the two ways that this can take place.
First, we have what is called source separation. Different kinds of waste can be separated at source; for example, waste paper and glass. But these two materials each illustrate one of the major problems with source separation. In the case of paper, the market price of waste paper for recycling fluctuates wildly. Sometimes the collected paper can be sold at a profit, sometimes you cannot even give it away and the source separated paper languishes in expensive storage until a decision is taken finally to dump it in a hole in the ground.
In the case of glass the problem is somewhat different. People can be encouraged to take their bottles to a bottle bank, but what about the broken bottles and the glass from greenhouses damaged by high winds and so on? This remains with the bulk of the waste. In addition, the areas where source separation has been piloted are nice, tidy suburbs, with environmentally motivated house owners and plenty of space for several dustbins per household.
What about the inner city tower blocks, two or more flats per floor, with a communal chute system? Even if the residents could be persuaded to separate their rubbish and take it down in the lift to be placed in one of four or five bins, just imagine having four bins for each of 150 flats. You would have 600 bins, and the waste collection authority would have to quadruple its collection service. Source separation can only be a partial answer, although the campaigns in favour of it have the side benefit of raising public awareness about environmental issues.
The second way in which waste may be diverted from the waste stream is comprehensively to process the whole bulk of domestic waste, mechanically separating out products which are recycled intact, and going on to create new and useful products.
With the permission of the Committee, I should like to quote from a speech by the Secretary of State given to the Packaging and Environment Conference on 25th March of this year. He said:
"Recycling means turning waste into something which the market can value and use".
He further said:
"And the environmental costs of landfill—the loss of open space, the dangers from methane build-up—are enormous and growing … We need to turn our attention now to the highly visible and undeveloped area of post-consumer recycling".
Again, to illustrate the scale of the task we confront, of the total of 120 million tonnes we produce each year 100 million tonnes comes from industry and commerce and about 20 million tonnes, or one tonne per household per year, of domestic waste. Further, in all about half of household waste should, technically, be recyclable, and that proportion will grow. We are achieving barely 5 per cent.
In fact the British recycling industry is now capable of recycling up to 92 per cent. of all household waste, including glass and metals, and doing exactly what the Secretary of State said we should be doing, producing new and useful products for which there is a strong and continuously growing demand as substitutes for raw materials whose extraction or use has strong environmental disadvantages.
I was even more pleased to read in the same speech the assertion that there is,

1161
"an artificial depression of the real costs of landfill because of the way local authorities organise their accounts."
I sincerely hope that the Government will follow through on what to me is the obvious implication of this assertion and ensure that accounting procedures are based on a degree of reality that reflects the facts of the situation and are not allowed to remain the way they are because, "We've always done it this way". Breaking up the inertia inherent in such a system may require determination, persistence and strong leadership, all of which I am sure the Secretary of State possesses in good measure.
Perhaps I may mention this point to the Minister. When the recycling industry is competing with local authority organisations to tender for recycling contracts, it finds it immensely difficult to deal with local authorities because they often seem to be governed by rules and business practices that are a reflection of the attitudes of the individuals concerned rather than by what one might call normal business practice. Perhaps when considering the accounting procedures for waste disposal the Minister will look at that point.
If I may return to practicalities, not only shall we shortly run out of holes in the ground, but those that remain may be less appropriate for landfill. They will be further away from the area from which the rubbish will be collected, causing a hidden burden to bear on community charge payers because of longer hours worked by collection staff, more fuel consumed and more wear and tear on vehicles.
The amendment seeks to establish on the face of the Bill a presumption in favour of recycling. It is a presumption shared by the Secretary of State and, therefore, perhaps we may assume by the Government also. Recycling is so obviously a good thing that perhaps the Government have taken it for granted when drafting the Bill. Will the Minister accept the importance of having such a presumption on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The noble Lord has made a number of most interesting observations and proposals not all of which I feel capable of absorbing at this stage of the Bill's proceedings. However, I shall happily give further consideration to them.
I have no quarrel with the sentiments expressed in the amendment. As I made plain in my reply to an earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the Government are committed to improving the United Kingdom's performance in the recycling of waste. The amendment sums up what we are seeking to achieve with our recycling policy. Our aim is indeed to minimise landfill and encourage recycling wherever practicable and economic. We specifically encourage in the Fill the promotion of recycling by each waste collection and waste regulation authority as the amendment proposes.
We shall come to the relevant clauses in due course but, if I might anticipate a little, Clause 48(4), which deals with waste regulation authorities, refers to the:
"desirability, where reasonably practicable, of giving priority to recycling Waste".
1162
Clause 47 covers at length the steps a waste collection authority should take to promote recycling. We shall be bringing forward amendments which empower the Secretary of State for the Environment to lay regulations to underpin a system of recycling credits to give further impetus to recycling by waste collection authorities. Other provisions will enable waste collection and waste disposal authorities to promote recycling.
While I welcome the noble Lord's amendment as a foretaste of what is to come, I feel sure that on that account he will not wish to press it.
Lord McNair: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. We shall certainly consider the government amendments and reserve the right to bring the issue back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit (No. 2) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.