Lords Sitting of 26 June 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Sunday Trading: Court Proceedings
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in the light of the High Court decision quashing a conviction of two companies for a breach of the Shops Act 1950 in proceedings brought by Peterborough City Council; and what has been the cost to public funds imposed by the proceedings in this case.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are prepared to consider reform of the Shops Act 1950, short of total deregulation, if a solution can be found which is widely accepted, enforceable, practicable and likely to command a parliamentary majority. No such solution has yet emerged. It is not possible to give a precise figure for the costs of proceedings in Peterborough. It is estimated, however, that the magistrates' Crown and and divisional courts' costs were £1,100, £3,300 and £7,600 respectively. The legal costs of the appellants have not yet been notified but they will be paid out of central funds in accordance with the judgment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Are the Government aware that the law on Sunday trading is now in a state of hopeless confusion which is unfair both to individual retailers and to the local authorities which have responsibility for enforcing it? Are the Government—unless they obtain some formula for agreement—content to leave the law like that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government's position is that they continue to regard the law on Sunday trading as outdated, full of anomalies and in need of reform. Following the defeat of the Shops Bill in 1986, however, and despite extensive consultations and discussions, no proposal to reform the law has yet been put forward which would command widespread agreement. Discussions are continuing but unless a wider measure of agreement on reform of the law can be achieved, there is little prospect of early legislation.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, would not the Government consider following the example of that god-fearing country, Scotland? I am sure that there would be unanimous agreement to following the Scots, who are famous for their religion.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The position in Scotland is entirely different. In 1986 that argument was prayed in aid as support for the Shops Bill, but the legislation failed.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does the Minister accept, as Lord Justice Mustill put the matter in the case in question, that things that can be sold on Sunday are,
"a strange miscellany of goods now ossified in the fifth schedule in the 1950 Act"?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the fifth schedule is the only one which allows goods to be sold or lists the goods that can be sold. That is the part of the Act which the Government feel is outdated.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the light of the chaos which the Minister informs the House exists, and in view of his pessimism as to agreement being reached on new legislation, what does he advise the country, and especially local authorities, to do regarding the present law? Will he comment on the great number of areas which are now surprisingly claiming to be holiday resorts?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's final point, it is the holiday resorts which claim another exemption from Section 47 of the Act. That is perhaps a means whereby holiday resorts have quite properly sought to achieve their objective.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the Auld Report which gave rise to the earlier Bill and nine days of debate in your Lordships' House? Can he say whether that report still forms the basis of Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the problem?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The Government have the Auld Report in front of them, but the current law remains the law. It is up to local authorities to prosecute if they think fit.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, everyone is aware of the anomalies linked with Sunday trading. Are the Government of the opinion that Sundays should always be a special day or have they decided to amend the Commandments?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have an opinion on that matter. However, I confirm that the Government believe that the Shops Act 1950 is outdated.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, although I agree that the law needs to be reformed, is my noble friend aware that a special meeting of about 40 local authority senior officers and councillors who were attending the annual conference of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration on 20th June condemned the small group of large retailers and very highly-paid lobby groups for their attitude to this issue? Is he further aware that, since November 1989 when the European Court upheld our Sunday laws, over 250 enforcement prosecutions have been instituted all over the country, culminating recently in the Torfaen prosecution of B&Q? Will he take that into account?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly take that into account. But I do not think that any of your Lordships would expect me to comment on the Torfaen case, which is subject to appeal.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, if unfortunately it is impossible to change this rather surprising law and a great deal of the trouble lies in its schedule, is it possible to amend the schedule?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that route has been considered. It was felt that the law itself needed reform rather than just tinkering with the schedule.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend regard it as proper for a responsible government to accept that the present state of the law is confused, unenforceable and unfair to all concerned and yet say that they propose to do nothing about it?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I sought not to give that impression. I was trying to give the impression that consultations were still taking place in order that some measure of agreement can be achieved before further practical details are arrived at.

Housing Corporation: Finance
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take action to alleviate the financial difficulties of the Housing Corporation.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the Housing Corporation's programme of grants and loans to housing associations is set to increase from £935 million in 1989–90 to £1,736 million in 1992–93. Because expenditure on schemes already approved for grant is running much faster than expected, many projects it had been hoped to start this year must now be deferred. The Housing Coporation greatly regrets the disruption to associations' programmes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we had the same Answer quite recently? Does he accept that unless additional finance is forthcoming for the Housing Corporation, housing starts in 1991 may grind to a complete halt? Is he also aware that the Housing Corporation has asked for an advance of £400 million for next year in order to keep the building programme rolling? Does the Minister not agree that that makes sense? Will he urge his right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place to grant the Housing Corporation's request?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that the Answer is similar to an earlier one. But it was a similar Question and that is why he received a similar Answer. He will not be
1434
surprised that my supplementary answer to his supplementary question is that the expenditure which has taken place to date is above that forecast and that is the reason why less will be spent. The reality is that more houses will be completed sooner.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, perhaps I may ask again a question to which we tried very hard to get an answer last week. The Government are quite commendably providing extra money on an accelerating scale for the Housing Corporation over the next few years. Is it not the case that the housing associations are completing faster than expected and therefore it would be better to phase the increase in money differently? Does the Minister not agree that it would be better to allow some of the money allocated for future years to be brought forward to this year? Did not the Government allow that to happen last year, in that they allowed £120 million to be brought forward to this year? Since there is the great danger of cancellation of projects which are ready to start, does he not agree that the idea which was so successfully implemented last year can be sensibly applied this year?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly said, there has been a considerable increase in the level of expenditure. It would be difficult to return to the Treasury to ask for a further draw-down on resources of about £400 million, which is the sum that has been referred to. We are not talking about cancellations but about early completions.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is a great waste of money for housing associations to get projects off the ground and then to have to suspend them? Properties that could be occupied therefore lie empty, damage is caused to them and the whole programme is put back for a year or more. Does he not agree that that in itself is a substantial waste of public money?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I return to the answer that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. The reality is that there has been an increase in the number of completions. That is the important point.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the very small housing associations that provide specialised housing for particular groups of people are suffering great hardship and some of them will almost go into receivership? In view of the fact that affordable social housing will not be provided by the housing associations because of the cutback in capital expenditure, will the Government consider allowing local authorities to spend more of their capital receipts to fill the gap that will be caused by the lack of provision by the housing associations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Baroness is attempting to broaden the Question beyond the housing associations to local authority-provided housing. As I have pointed out on two occasions already on this Question, we are not talking about a reduction in the number of houses but about a reduction in the amount of cash available because

1435
of the additional money that has been spent to provide more units earlier due to improvements in efficiency by the housing associations.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the behaviour of the Housing Corporation rebounds on housing associations by producing a lack of confidence among councils in the performance of housing associations? Is he further aware that delays not only increase costs and deprive the homeless of a place to live but also cause schemes to be jettisoned? Will he comment on the latest announcement that in order to get out of the present crisis housing associations are being asked to accept a 5 per cent. slippage in their programmes? What exactly does a 5 per cent. slippage mean in this context?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the problems are brought about essentially by success and not by disaster. If more money is spent with the result that more houses are provided sooner, fewer houses will be built later. But the actual net effect should not be any different from that which was originally planned.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Now answer the question!
Lord Northfield: My Lords, why was it possible to bring forward to this year £120 million from last year when the same thing is not being allowed for this year when it is equally necessary?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, earlier, the sum of money that has been mentioned for this year is £400 million and not £120 million.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the worst facets of what is now taking place is that because of their financial situation some of the housing associations are having to dispose of land which they bought two or three years ago when prices were at their peak? They are now having to sell it in a depressed market at a much lower price, thereby further depleting their meagre financial resources. Will he consider that point to see whether assistance can be given in that direction?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the remarks of the noble Lord on the price of land to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not about time that we abandoned semantics and niceties of accounting and got on with the job of providing homes at rents that people can afford?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that that is applicable not only to my own department but to many other departments. It would result in the unbelievable situation of sympathy being shown to the Treasury.

Former Ministers: Private Interests
2.52 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards government ex-Ministers taking posts in privatised industries which have been affected by government policies.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, successive governments have taken the view that it is in the national interest that former Ministers should be able to put their experience at the service of industry. These matters are left to the discretion and good sense of the individuals concerned. It is a principle of public life that Ministers must order their affairs so that no conflict arises between public duties and their private interest, including their foreseeable future private interests.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that it is of the utmost importance that there should be a clear separation between the exercise of political power and activities within the commercial world, the main objective of which is the making of profit? As four former Ministers are now participating in some form in privatised industries which the Government have privatised, is this not derogating from that principle and allowing the commercial world the benefit of the inside knowledge gained from ministerial experience?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. The noble Lord's question is answered by part of the Answer which I gave; namely, that it is important to recognise that a Minister's actions towards a company when he is in office are constrained by well-established principles. If I may say so, there is very little difference as concerns that principle between a Minister in the Government going to work in a privatised company and a Minister going to work in an industry in the public sector.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recognise that the fact that the Government have made serious mistakes in this field is in no way exonerated by the fact that a previous Labour Government made equally bad mistakes?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I would not accept either of the theses which the noble Lord puts to me.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that some people are concerned when they see former Ministers from this Chamber and another place taking chairmanships and other high-salaried posts in companies which they helped to privatise in the very recent past? Does he not understand that people outside do not readily accept that as wholesome conduct?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I have answered that question. He is seeking to distinguish between those who work in government taking chairmanships in undertakings

1437
in the public sector and former Ministers taking positions in undertakings in the private sector. All I can say to him is that successive governments have always taken the view that it is in the national interest that former Ministers should be able to put their experience at the service of industry and that there should be a two-way flow between industry and government and government and industry. There is therefore no change in the principle.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, from the standpoint of practical politics, what sanctions do the Government have against non-pensionable former Ministers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the sanction sought by the noble Earl is to be found in an area which I am sure has occurred to him and which I shall put to the House. There is an important consideration for Ministers. They are public figures and both they and the companies concerned have a strong motivation to protect their good name.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that rules in this matter exist in relation to senior civil servants? Does not recent experience suggest that it would be a good idea if similar rules were published and were adopted by Ministers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is a difference between the position I set out in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and that of civil servants. Civil servants are not normally public figures but are far more likely to have had detailed contractual dealings with their prospective employers and to be privy to trade secrets of competitors. It is worth noting that the rule for civil servants is not a prohibition for a period of time when they may not take a paid business appointment. The rule is that within a period of two years they must seek permission to do so.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Leader of the House recognise that with the privatisations that have taken place there is a somewhat different dimension for Ministers and their future careers outside government? Ministers are responsible for privatisations. Privatisations are completed by government and Ministers are responsible for their departments. Is it not therefore rather odd that there are no rules governing the future careers of Ministers who are actually in charge of the privatisation of the companies which they then join?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, what the noble Lord is temporarily overlooking is the fact that in every case that I can think of the privatisation has always been accompanied by regulation—indeed, in some cases by very strict regulation. Therefore I go back to the original thesis of my first Answer. Provided a Minister has made absolutely certain that his affairs are so conducted that there is no conflict between public duties and private interest, the position we have had for many years of people working in government being able to put their experience at the service of industry should be continued.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, should there not be an interval of some kind before a Minister takes a position? Although he may be of great value to the industry does it not look very bad if within a month or two a Minister joins a private firm which he has privatised?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, usually there is an interval and usually it is a quite substantial one. I repeat that for members of the Civil Service there is no mandatory interval. The rule is that within a period of two years there has to be an application for permission to take a paid business appointment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to make personal charges against any noble Lord or any right honourable or honourable Member of another place. But is it not the case that the privatisation measures which are the base of this charge were highly contentious both in Parliament and in the country? Is it not further the case that the right honourable gentlemen in question were members of the Cabinet who were responsible for those measures and in some cases took part in the debates in relation to privatisation? In those circumstances would it not have been better to allow a period to elapse before their appointment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I recognise what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is saying about the desirability of there being a reasonable lapse of time. However, I have already answered that point. The difference between going into the public sector or the private sector is that, in many cases, those going into the privatised companies move into companies which have been made into profit-making concerns. This has been for the good not only of them but also of the country. There have been concerns—this applies in all the cases about which I can think—which have always been regulated, and very strictly regulated indeed, in the legislation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord convey to his right honourable friend the general feeling that there is something not quite right about this situation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I do not agree with him in that argument.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite what some people may think, there are many Ministers and former Ministers who can bring an enormous amount of influence and practical experience to many companies, in the same way that many people involved in companies can bring a good deal of experience and practicality to another place and, indeed, to this House?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. That is the view which has been taken by successive governments over many years.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: my Lords, I have been intrigued by the discussion which has taken place so far. If the noble Lord will look back at the records, he will find that in the 1960s I questioned the scandal of senior civil servants leaving government departments and, within a short time, taking jobs in companies with which they had had relations in their civil servant capacity.
The matter was taken up by Hugh Gaitskell, the then Leader of the Opposition, and the ruling was made that senior civil servants would not be allowed to embark upon careers in private enterprise until they had left the government department concerned for two years. That is how the ruling was established.Why cannot this be done now in respect of Ministers?
There are scandals taking place. The noble Lord knows this. It is smearing Privy Counsellors and right honourable gentlemen who have held posts in government and who are now taking posts in private enterprise with which they have had contact. They have been bought because of their knowledge—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that this is quite true. Therefore, there ought also to be a two-year rule for Ministers.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can only repeat that there is not a two-year prohibition so far as concerns the Civil Service. However, there is a two-year period during which it is necessary for those in public service to apply for permission if they wish to take a paid business appointment. I shall not go over the same ground. I believe that the position we have at present is right.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, are we not perhaps taking rather too serious a view of the matter? After all, there have been Ministers in all governments, if I may say so, who have taken jobs. I can see two former Prime Ministers who saw some of their Ministers properly take jobs after leaving their position in the Government. Similarly, there are others who have not done so.
It seems to me perfectly simple. Some Ministers who have a perfect expertise and who would be valuable to industry are employed by them and others—of whom I can name one very easily—do not seem to have such a value and, therefore, are not employed in that way. Therefore, there is no reason to differentiate between them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, apart from the self-criticism indulged in by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, I could not have put the position better myself.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, if noble Lords will be quiet I shall get on with it! Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House tell us whether what he said applies to British institutions or organisations which have been privatised and which, having been privatised, now have overseas and foreign elements
1440
involved in them? I repeat; does what he has said up to now involve such organisations containing a foreign element which have taken over British companies?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in so far as I could hear the content of the noble Lord's question, I think that the answer is yes, indeed. My answers have taken account of that aspect of the matter.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to point out to my noble friend that we have now taken 27 minutes to deal with three Questions. We have far exceeded the time allotted for Question Time. If this very important point is to be continued, should it not be continued by way of a debate? I think that we should now proceed with the next Question.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that we are in danger of turning this matter into a debate. However, I am in the hands of the House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before we move to the next Question I should like the noble Lord to answer the question which I put to him. Does he agree that it is important for public confidence sharply to separate political power and ministerial access to commercial and political information from the use of such information in the private sector of industry? In particular, will he comment upon the negotiations which took place when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that Mercury would be given a licence and then, less than 12 months later, the same Secretary of State became chairman of Cable and Wireless which owns Mercury?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
A noble Lord: Well done!

Defence Sector Companies
3.7 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will launch a study, in conjunction with companies in the defence sector, of how the defence industry could manage a smooth transition to production for civilian uses, in the light of the anticipated reduction in demand for armaments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): No, my Lords. Decisions on the way companies conduct their businesses are best left to the commercial judgment of the individual companies concerned.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does he recall the statement made by the Department of Trade and Industry in its White Paper that,
"open markets do not mean Governments should rely solely on the operation of market forces or stand by as a passive observer of the economy"?

1441
In view of the fact that redundancies have been annouced in the industry and that further redundancies are anticipated, does that not indicate that the DTI is standing by, whereas it should begin dialogue as the purchaser of arms with the suppliers of ar s to ensure a smooth transition?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only repeat to the noble Lord that, as regards defence, we prefer to allow our suppliers to follow their own commercial judgment in deciding their markets.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are more than 325,000 people employed in the defence industry? That means that there are over 1 million people whose livelihoods are affected by employment in the industry. Surely he cannot simply say that we should leave the future of those individuals, within the context of a national policy and strategy, solely to market forces and the decisions taken in a dozen or 50 boardrooms.
Can the Minister not grasp this nettle and recognise the fact that this is a perfect time, and a perfect case, for the Government to show broad leadership by bringing together the TUC, the CBI and even local authorities involved, where whole towns are affected by the situation, to produce an alternative for the future?
Lord Denham: No, no, no!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes, yes, yes!
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that, under the Options for Change review, when it is decided as to what and by how much armaments are to be reduced, the defence firms will be fully informed and consulted. At the end of the day their decisions lie in their hands.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say what relations the Government have with companies in the defence sector?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government have very good relations with them.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend think that perhaps the "groundnut" scheme might be useful in this respect?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I would be somewhat dubious of that suggestion.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there would be less disruption if these companies could be given more notice of changes in procurement policy? Further, is he aware that it is difficult to see why the Tornado decision could not have been taken earlier? Indeed, many of us on this side of the House wonder why the defence review was not started earlier.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is not a defence review. It comes under the heading of a policy review under Options for Change, as the noble Lord well knows. In my previous answer, I said that when the time is right the defence industry will be informed and fully consulted about the future of defence armaments.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, do the Government and the Minister accept that 50 per cent. of government-funded research and development is in the defence industries as against 12 per cent. in Germany and 6 per cent. in Japan? Does not the new defence policy offer the opportunity to return scientists to civilian manufacturing?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is some 45 per cent. of total government-funded research. The figure for research and development under the defence budget is just under £2 billion. It is scheduled that that figure will decrease gradually over the next few years.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Denham: My Lords, of course I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. However, when he has asked his question and my noble friend has answered, perhaps I may make the business statement.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it is a short question designed only to avoid future misunderstanding. Will the Minister explain the difference between the defence review and the Options for Change?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in the past defence reviews have normally been resource-led. Under Options for Change, the review is policy-led as a result of the diminishing threat from the East.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about an hour, and that during that adjournment the Report stage of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill will be taken.
At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Carlton Club explosion.

Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Bill
3.11 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill
3.12 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass —(Lord Mackie of Benshie.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Report received.

Term and Quarter Days (Scotland) Bill
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.14 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 the 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.]
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 203B:
Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("National Council JOr Environmental Waste Policy

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the date of Royal Assent establish a National Council for Environmental Waste Policy, for the purpose of developing an integrated policy covering waste minimisation, the re-use of waste materials, recycling and the disposal of waste.

(2) The Council established under this section shall have the following functions—

(a) the development and publication of the proposals referred to in subsection (1) above, after consultation
1444
with local authorities, industry, waste producers, trades unions, consumer organisations, environmental organisations and such other persons as it considered to be concerned;

(b) the promotion of the use by companies of raw materials conforming to environmental criteria specified by the council; and

(c) the monitoring of environmental audits undertaken by companies, and the notification to shareholders and investors of any failure to meet environmental criteria specified by the Council.

(3) For the purposes of exercising its functions under subsection (2)(c) above, the Council shall undertake corporate investigations at cost to the companies concerned.

(4) The Council shall provide advice and assistance to waste collection authorities and waste disposal authorities respectively with respect to the development by them of plans under sections 47 and 48 below.").

The noble Earl said: The new clause that I propose in the amendment which is to be inserted in the Bill immediately before Clause 47 was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he moved his Amendment No. 2. He has already spoken about the need for an environmental protection executive—he has reminded the Committee of the parallel Health and Safety Executive—related to waste issues as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in his Environment Protection Bill.
My amendment, which relates to the establishment of a national council for environmental waste policy, has been subject to previous debate and scrutiny not merely in this House through my short debate on 9th May on a call for national environmental waste policy, and my contribution to the Second Reading of the Bill, but in debate and scrutiny elsewhere.
Last April, I had the privilege of hosting an international conference here on the same theme as my short debate. The conference attracted speakers from the European Commission, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the Minister of State for the Environment and the Countryside as well as the distinguished environmental lawyer, Mr. Andrew Waite, who is the Secretary-General of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association. The audience was no less distinguished. It was made up of leaders from waste regulatory authorities, chief executives of major companies, academics, scientists, waste policy experts and Members of the House.
Immediately before the conference, a survey was conceived and conducted at my request by Strategy (Europe) Limited. That survey demonstrated the need for a national waste policy and strategy which the Minister here, and the Minister for the Environment, conceded are not contained in the Bill, although the Minister in my short debate believed that the strategy was needed. That concession by the Government is reported in the May issue of the ENDS Report as:
"something which would have been unheard of even a few months ago".
The opinion of many of those who attended the conference was that there should be not just a national environmental waste policy, but that there was the need for the establishment of a body possibly to be called the national council for environmental waste policy. That council should be set up partly

1445
against the background of the long-term traumas of HMIP and its inability satisfactorily to enforce the existing legislation, let alone its capacity to enforce the myriad of measures proposed in the Bill.
During my short debate, the Minister argued that the much government-supported CBI and the Chemical Industries Association, with the vested interests of their respective toxic waste producing members, would fare the public well-being much better than an independent body such as the one that I outlined in my proposals.
However, the body that I propose would be beholden to no one other than corporate body of people in this country and the quality of its life over the next 10 to 20 years. Environmentally responsible waste producing companies which therefore have nothing to hide would find an ally in such a proposed council. On the other hand, those companies which conceal unacceptable environmental activities under the green flag of convenience would soon see that the council was no voluntary sop to government and industry, but a genuine force to be reckoned with—CBI, CIA or no.
The council too would be no middle ground between the Friends of the Earth on the one hand and the CIA and the Government on the other. It would have no truck with waste, economic expediency and political environmental compromises. In terms of waste issues, it would seek to help put back integrity into the philosophical meaning of sustainable economic development.
The role of the proposed national council for environmental waste policy would be, first, to evolve an integrated environmental waste policy related to waste minimisation, re-use, recycling and disposal. That policy would be based on consultations with local authorities, industry and the business community, directly and through trade and employers' groups. Trade unions, public and consumer pressure groups, as well as specialists in the waste sector, would also be consulted.
Secondly, it would ensure that manufacturing companies committed themselves to using raw materials meeting environmental criteria as laid down by the council. Thirdly, it would monitor environmental audits leading to acceptable corporate environmental strategies. Where a waste-producing business did not meet an acceptable environmental criterion laid down by the council, a notification would be posted to the shareholders and the other investors involved in that company, together with notification to the appropriate government departments.
Fourthly, it is proposed the council should have its own corporate investigative arm. The method of investigation could best be compared with the quality systems employed by companies such as Shell which are checked by independent third parties against the requirements of British Standard 5750. Fifthly and lastly, the investigation of a company's environmental audit and corporate environmental strategy by the quality systems type investigators would be paid for by the company and that company would be obliged to co-operate by law.
We shall eventually have to have such a body and not continue with naive reliance on codes of conduct
1446
issued by representatives of vested interest bodies, however well intentioned. Responsible companies will no doubt abide by such codes, but in a field already rife with fly-boys, who can expect them even to know, let alone observe, such codes? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand that it is for the convenience of the Committee that we deal with the noble Earl's amendment together with my Amendments No. 204, 205 and 211, as well as Amendment No. 219C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. That is the right way to approach the matter because in many ways the three amendments or the sets of amendments are complementary and they all tend towards the same objective.
First, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Earl on recycling his speech so successfully. It was a good speech when he first made it in May. It was another good speech when he made it on Second Reading. I believe that it was slightly shorter this time, which is all to the good.
Many Members of the Committee may be surprised to hear that I approach this matter from a businessman's point of view. What is needed is something which any business entering a new period of investment with a new organisational structure ought to require and which the directors ought to require of the management. I am astonished that, while requiring business plans and waste management plans from the individual waste management authorities, the Government have given no thought whatever to requiring the same of themselves.
In Amendment No. 204—Amendments Nos. 205 and 211 are purely consequential—we propose that the Secretary of State should have an obligation within six months of the coming into force of the section on the national waste plan. The contents of that waste plan should be: national targets for the recycling of waste over the following five years; guidance on the development of waste recycling plans by collection authorities; and a national assessment of arrangements for the treatment and disposal of controlled waste, including estimates of volume and types of waste over the following five years.
If I were considering the substantial amount of investment of public money involved in this part of the Bill, the least I should require is that there should be a business plan. I shall come back to that in a moment. In the meantime, I wish to remind the Committee that we are not exactly taking a lead. In September last year the European Commission published a Community strategy for waste management in which it set out many of the contents which ought to be part of the Government's business plan for waste management. The headings of such a plan are well known to any noble Lords who have taken part in any of these debates, which seem to occur with considerable frequency.
The first option is the prevention of waste; or if that is not possible, the recycling and re-use of waste materials; or, if that is not possible, the safe disposal of non-recoverable residue. In proposing such a

1447
strategy—and the matter is still under consultation—the European Community has set the framework in which a whole series of further draft directives is now being prepared. For example, we are now at the stage of the fourth draft of the directive on landfill sites. This is of great importance, as the Committee will recognise, because of the information which has recently become available about the extent to which there are toxic wastes in landfill sites and the quite horrific nature of the cost of the remedial action which will be required. A number of amendments down for debate this afternoon cover that issue.
Perhaps I may continue with the example of landfill sites, which are only one of the means of waste management that we shall discuss. There is inevitably an interdependence of the different methods used for waste management. An individual waste management authority can hardly consider what landfill sites are required unless it goes on to consider what those landfill sites will dispose of and how in regard to the total waste for which the authority has responsibility that relates to the balance between landfill sites and incineration, for example.
The problem with this is that the local authorities, which have responsibility under the Bill for the local control of waste management—and we do not object to that—have insufficient knowledge about what their neighbouring authorities are doing in terms of landfill and incineration. I shall keep to those two examples. Incineration plant is often on a much larger scale than landfill sites. The whole economics of landfill depend on there being a short distance to the site, whereas incineration has a quite different economic basis. It depends on the steady supply of suitable materials for incineration which may come from quite a wide area.
With the best will in the world, local authorities which are being set up under this part of the Bill do not have all the information they need in order to produce a waste management plan which makes sense and which takes account of the optimum provision for facilities of each type that will be required for an efficient and economic system; and yet the Government criticise individual authorities for failing to have their own waste plans. What we are proposing here is that the Government should take their own medicine. They should treat this matter in a businesslike way and provide a national waste plan along the lines laid down in Amendment No. 204 to the Bill. I firmly believe that amendment would be a constructive addition to the provisions of this part of the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had to say, particularly about Amendment No. 204. My attention was drawn to an article which appeared in the Independent on 13th June. The article considers the latest proposed European Commission directive. It states that the Government have commissioned a report by experts from the Environmental Safety
1448
Centre of the Atomic Energy Authority's laboratories at Harwell. The article continues,
"Experts from the Environmental Safety Centre of the Atomic Energy Authority's laboratories at Harwell examined 100 tips, mostly run by local councils, representing half the waste landfilled in Britain.
Most sites had no measures for controlling pollution of groundwater or for methane emissions.
About a third did not find out if their operations were causing any off-site water pollution or methane leakage. Of the ones that did monitor, more than half found problems. The Harwell survey found very few sites met the UK permeability recommendation of three metres per year. More than 45 had adjoining rocks which were of a permeability thousands of times higher … landfill operators were trying to improve the way they prepared, ran and then closed tips, but the widespread lack of proper monitoring for pollution was undermining their efforts".
That paints a pretty horrific scene. Therefore I strongly support the idea that we should have a national plan.
Lord Layton: I shall move Amendment No. 219C because I think it puts matters in the right order. Both the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, deal with a national plan but from the wrong direction. We have here a situation where the waste regulation authorities are supposed to produce a plan. The noble Earl and the noble Lord are suggesting that the Government should produce a plan which the WRAs should then follow. However, I suggest in my Amendment No. 219C that the Government gather together all the plans that the WRAs have prepared. That will give the Government a basis of logistics and statistics which will enable them to find out what capacities and capabilities exist. From that information the Government can perhaps derive a plan which would not otherwise be available.
The first step is to collect the plans. Under the terms of Clause 48(10) it is a requirement that the WRAs submit plans. The next and fairly obvious step is for the Secretary of State to collate all the plans and come up with a national plan. If we try to do it the other way round, we shall find that no one will be able to do anything because no one will know what is going on in any direction.
Lord Renton: We have a number of alternatives to consider simultaneously. The Bill contains a pretty elaborate national plan in Part II set out in 46 clauses. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who has done so much work on this subject and whose views are always entitled to great respect, has put forward the next alternative that I wish to mention, which is that,
"The Secretary of State shall … establish a National Council for Environmental Waste Policy".
The noble Earl said that that council should formulate the policy after consultation with various people, including government departments. However, government departments are not mentioned in his amendment. I should have thought if we were to accept such a scheme that there would have to be consultation with the Secretary of State.
Another difficulty that I find with the amendment is that one wonders to whom the national council would be answerable. There is nothing to indicate

1449
that it would be answerable to the Secretary of State, although he appointed it. There is nothing to indicate how it would become answerable to Parliament. I must confess that I find difficulty with the noble Earl's amendment.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and of my noble friend Lord Layton come nearer to what I should have thought is constitutionally acceptable in that they make it quite clear that the Secretary of State is brought into the matter not merely through having appointed the national council in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but also through having carried out the inquiries himself in the case of the amendment of my noble friend.
I ask the Committee to consider whether any of these alternatives is necessary or is as good as the provisions in the Bill. A national policy has been worked out by the department and the Secretary of State and we have set out in 46 clauses how it is to be implemented. We must be jolly careful here. This Bill is elaborate enough as it is. We are falling into a grave error in some of our legislation in trying to do too much.
Lord Hesketh: In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, I should like to begin by paying tribute to the valuable contributions that he has made in recent months to stimulating debate and raising informed interest in waste issues. We had a long and serious debate on the noble Earl's Motion on 9th May, after my honourable friend the Minister of State took part in a stimulating seminar on waste which was held in your Lordships' House on 23rd April.
Having said that, I must in all honesty add that the noble Earl's commendable enthusiasm has slightly run away with him. During earlier debates we have all had ample opportunity to hear his arguments for a national waste disposal strategy and for a national council to provide for it. While the Government have agreed that it is desirable to provide for a strategic approach to waste disposal planning across wider areas than counties, we are not persuaded that such strategies require any independent national body to construct them. Indeed the more we have heard, the more the Government are convinced that we do not need or want anything like the body which this amendment seeks to establish.
I say this in the knowledge that the noble Earl has been reported as saying that the Government support such a council. I can only conclude that there has been some small misunderstanding. Neither I nor the Minister of State have ever subscribed to the idea of a national council on waste. What we have said—I am happy to repeat it today in the Chamber—is that there is need for some strategic thinking and policy on waste issues on at least the regional scale; if anyone wishes to dub that with the title of a national waste strategy, so be it. Yes, we need a strategy, most usefully at a regional level, but we do not need a council to devise or implement it.
It is clear from the amendment that such a council would not have a job of its own to do. The functions listed are readily allocated between government, local authorities and industry. Where these tasks
1450
would be assisted by formal consultation arrangements or committees, the Government have set them up. For instance, there are a great many consultation arrangements and committees for the recycling of waste where the lead is taken by the Department of Trade and Industry in order to promote the development of markets for recycled products. In such circumstances it is right that the issues are fully discussed with those who are best able to take the action on the ground.
We do not see a need for an all-embracing national council. We prefer to deal with the development of policy which is finely targeted to the audience it addresses. In this respect each arm of the public and private sector has its role to play. It is the Government's job to consult on, produce and promulgate waste policy and to advise collection and regulation authorities on their plans. It is the job of local authorities and for processes covered by integrated pollution control (the subject of Part I of the Bill) of HMIP to police companies and to ensure a high standard of management of wastes when they are stored, recycled or disposed of. It is the job of industry itself, with the help and advice from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, to develop and apply its own environmental policies, including the investigation of its disposal and recycling options, the scope for waste minimisation and the protection of the environment through such tools as environmental audits.
None of those functions needs a new body on top of the existing system. In particular, industry already produces its own waste strategies for those sectors that produce the greatest volumes of waste or those that produce difficult wastes. There is no need to duplicate the effort. I am convinced that the industrial organisations that have produced such guidance in the past, such as the CBI and the Chemical Industries Association, will continue to keep the needs of their industries under revue and will provide further guidance as necessary.
Amendments Nos. 204 and 219C are in a similar vein and also seek to produce a national waste plan. Amendments Nos. 205 and 211 require collection and disposal authorities to have regard to such a national plan in drawing up their plans. That seems like a curiously top-down approach to planning. The provisions of Clauses 47 and 48 for recycling and disposal plans set out a programme of operation. The first thing that they require an authority to do in both cases is to carry out an investigation of its area to see what waste actually arises in the area for which disposal or recycling arrangements will be necessary. That must surely be the right way to approach the matter: first find out what wastes you have to deal with and then determine what would be the most sensible way of dealing with them.
Of crucial importance in that process is an analysis of the facilities which are already in existence and in those which need to be provided in the future. Any planning system that started from the opposite end—from the top down—could only produce a series of pious intentions divorced from reality. The Government are in no position to provide such information or such a plan from the outset, even if

1451
they thought such a plan sensible. In the 1960s and 1970s a series of national plans for various matters were produced by governments of different political hues. They achieved nothing and the concept is thoroughly discredited.
The Government would like to see more co-ordination of waste disposal plans at a regional level. I have already said in the debate on Clause 29 that the Government are discussing with the local authority associations ways of improving co-operation between regulation authorities at a regional level. That was the subject of an amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Layton. One of the objectives of the process will be to prepare regional strategies for disposal, especially with a view to ensuring that each region is able to provide the majority of waste management facilities for its own needs.
I therefore cannot agree that any national waste disposal council or plans are needed or desirable. I hope that the noble Lords will not feel that I have been unduly harsh but I feel that I owe it to the Committee to make the Government's view quite clear beyond any possibility of misrepresentation. By all means let us have strategies where they count—at local and regional level.
I have gone on for quite long enough. However, perhaps I may take up the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton, who quite rightly drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are 46 clauses in the Bill which I believe represent a national policy. That is why we resist the amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government realise that several scientists have just invented a process by which they can turn the straw from corn into materials to make utensils which at the moment are made of plastic. That will be a great help in the future. Although it is not strictly relevant to the amendment, I believe that it is important that the Government should inquire into the matter. The process can be used to make utensils of all sorts. The material will fade away in about six months or so. Therefore there will be no need to recycle that form of waste because it will vanish.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that my noble friend is referring to the funding of the AFRC research in this field. I am very glad that he drew it to the attention of the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be helpful if I respond to the Minister's remarks about my amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, will want to wind up the debate by referring to his amendment.
The Minister fears that we may find his reaction harsh. I should never have accused him of being harsh; he has just missed the point almost entirely, which is quite different. He embarked on what seemed to me to be a quite irrelevant attack on the
1452
national plans of the 1960s and 1970s, accusing his own party of indulging in them, as well as Labour Governments. He said that such a concept was thoroughly discredited. The Minister totally ignored the fact that that is not what is proposed in my amendment in particular or in the version moved by the noble Lord, Lord Layton.
What is proposed here is much more akin to a business plan, as I sought to make clear, obviously unsuccessfuly, when I introduced the amendment. We are talking about the systematic collection and interpretation of the information which is necessary in order for the investment decisions which have to be taken to be made on a proper and efficient basis. That is very different from the 46 clauses—if I may revert to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—which set out the policy of the Government.
There is nothing wrong with the Government setting out their policy in legislation. Indeed, that is what they have sought to do in Parts I and II of the Bill. However, that is not a substitute for the detailed planning of the requirements of a national waste management policy on the ground, locally area by area. It is not a substitute for determining the options open to the Government and their agents in the waste management authorities, the cost of those different options, the balance between them and the correct conclusion to be arrived at. Those are not matters to be provided for in legislation or by setting out a policy. They are provided for by detailed, businesslike planning of resources, options and opportunities. That is what our plan proposes.
The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has a number of advantages to which I thought the Minister did scant justice. The particular advantages which I see in his amendment are the close relationship between his council and the companies particularly concerned with the production of waste. His proposal that there should be an obligation on the council to report directly to the shareholders of those companies about the environmental effect of their policies strikes me as a very valuable addition. It is not something that necessarily has to be included in legislation but it is something that the Minister ought to have recognised. He ought to have indicated that the Government supported it and would seek to provide for it, if not in legislation at least in regulations.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, is closer to mine than I think he recognised. There is not a great deal of difference between the top-down and bottom-up approach. The Minister misinterpreted both of them in that respect. The main difference between our amendments is that the noble Lord's provides for a national waste disposal plan, whereas mine makes it clear that the three options in order of priority are the prevention of waste, the recycling of waste and the disposal of waste which can neither be prevented nor recycled. To that extent I believe that my amendment is all-embracing and will be more effective than his, with due respect to the careful drafting and excellent presentation of the noble Lord.
The Minister's response to Amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 211 is so unsatisfactory that I should warn

1453
the Committee that whatever decision the noble Earl. Lord Shannon, makes about his amendment, and subject to anything else that other noble Lords have to say, it would be my intention to seek the opinion of the Committee on the amendment in due course.
Lord Layton: I should like to take further the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and those made about my amendment in particular. I take his point about setting out priorities. It is a very strong point against which I have no defence. There is no provision in the 46 or 47 clauses of the Government's national plan for that information to be gathered together and published from the plans collected from the WRAs so as to allow local authorities, waste disposal authorities, waste regulatory authorities and all the other various authorities that are involved to produce regional or local plans on which their business decisions will be based. Unless that is forthcoming, I do not believe that anybody can come up with a rational plan at any level. One must know the overall situation in the country.
Basically my amendment seeks to say, "When you have the statistics, for God's sake tell everybody what they are". In that way it can then be known whether there are shortfalls or excess capacities. Therefore one can now say, "This is what we have to do; this is where investment must be encouraged and where it must be discouraged. This is the direction that we should take and these are the things that we should avoid".
For that reason I feel very strongly that the Government should take that point. It is in fact a very simple point. They should take that step and publish the plans of the modifications that the WRAs make to their own plans. That information should then be published as a national plan. If it is not thought desirable to publish it as a national plan, then they should give it as a national set of statistics in order that other plans at the other levels can then be worked out to the best of people's ability and with the best information available. Otherwise, they are not worth working out.
The Earl of Shannon: I am most grateful to all those who have spoken with reference to my amendment and especially to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, even though he said that my speech was somewhat recycled. I thought that there might possibly be noble Lords who were not present on the previous occasion. I should draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we had exactly the same recycled reply from the Minister. His brief was exactly the same as the one that he read out on two previous occasions.
These amendments fall into two different groups. My amendment tries to deal with planning and enforcement. The other amendments grouped with it tend to deal with planning based on information. I have nothing against them although they do not go so far as I should have liked. I ought to have realised and learned by now, after some years in this Chamber, that it is quite impossible to get any amendment past the critical and miscroscopic
1454
scrutiny of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who will always find just that little loophole that you did not think was there. He always does it, certainly with my amendments. Nevertheless I am grateful to him.
The noble Lord made the point that the amendment could not in itself be fully constitutional and that it was defective. I feel, however, that it is not unacceptable in intention. There may be 46 clauses outlining government policy, but, as we have heard, the Government do not have the information. They cannot do the planning. Equally well, as we have heard on previous occasions, there is quite definitely no possible chance that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will ever be able to fulfil its duties under this provision. There are not enough people to carry out enforcement of what has already been legislated for. Yet we require it to do other things which it will never be able to do. Unless the Minister can say that it is intended to enlarge Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution about 50 times, he is just airily saying, "Let us do this. This is government policy. Let us hope that everyone will forget about it".
That is just not good enough. If the Minister is prepared to say, "We shall produce the resources that are required to implement the Bill", we shall be quite happy. It is not on at all merely to say that this has to be done but that they will not give any more resources to do it.
I agree that my amendment as it stands may be defective, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out. Therefore I have no option but to consider what has been said and possibly reserve the right to come back to this matter on a future occasion. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead: With the leave of your Lordships, I shall now—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are dealing with a group of amendments which have been debated together by common agreement. I think that it might be better if we conclude the immediately succeeding amendment, which is on the same point and which need not be debated again, before we resume the House and have the Statement. I am not in any way anxious to delay the Statement but at this point it may confuse the arguments on the Bill.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the noble Lord. I entirely agree.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 204:
Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("National Waste Plan

.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish within six months of the coming into force of this section a National Waste Plan including the following matters—

(a) national targets for the recycling of waste over the following five years, together with guidance as to the development of waste recycling plans by collection authorities under section 47 below;

(b) a national assessment of arrangements for the treatment and disposal of controlled waste, including estimates of volume and types of waste over the following five years,

1455
the likely pattern of licences and guidance as to methods for disposal and treatment, for purposes of providing guidance to regulation authorities in the development of plans under section 48 below.

(2) The Plan prepared in accordance with subsection (1) above shall include national targets for the minimisation of waste, and the Secretary of State may by Order require producers of waste to comply with standards or requirements as to the minimisation of waste as reasonably appear to be necessary to secure the attainment of the targets contained in the Plan.

(3) Before publishing the Plan, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations representative of authorities exercising functions under this Part, waste producers, environmental organisations, consumers and other persons as appear to him to be concerned.

(4) The targets contained in the Plan shall be drawn up subject to the overriding requirement to secure the maximisation of recycling and the minimisation of waste.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 204) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hunt, L.

Airedale, L.

Hylton, L.

Annan, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kennet, L.

Brightman, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kintore, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Leatherland, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Listowel, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ennals, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Galpern, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Parry, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Porritt, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hirshfield, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

1456

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Scanlon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Seebohm, L.

Tenby, V.

Shackleton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Shannon, E.

Varley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Somerset, D.

Walston, L.

Stallard, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stedman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hooper, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allerton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Alport, L.

Joseph, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Balfour, E.

Kitchener, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Layton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lovat, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Butterworth, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Milverton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cockfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Cottlesloe, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nelson, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De L'Isle, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dormer, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Effingham, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Elibank, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Elles, B.

Prior, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Radnor, E.

Faithfull, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Reay, L.

Foley, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodney, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Geddes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Germans, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Grantchester, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Savile, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Selborne, E.

Haig, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Halsbury, E.

Sharples, B.

Harlech, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Havers, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hayter, L.

Henley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Teviot, L.

Hood, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

1457

Tollemache, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Trumpington, B.

Windlesham, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wootton, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Young, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Carlton Club: Bomb Incident
4.4 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the bombing of the Carlton Club last night. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the explosion at the Carlton Club, St. James's Street, last night. In view of the fact that this matter was raised on the Floor of the House last night, and the Lord President indicated that I would consider whether I should make a Statement today, I thought that this was the right thing to do.
"The explosion occurred at the Carlton Club, 70 St. James's Street, London W 1 at 8.39 p.m. yesterday evening. Seven persons were injured by the blast and were taken to Westminster and St. Thomas's hospitals for treatment. None is in any danger, and three were discharged without being detained overnight. The injured include the porter of the club, a former Member of this House and now a Member of the other place, and two uniformed police officers. Our sympathies go to all tile injured and their families, and we wish then- a speedy recovery.
"The explosion has caused severe damage to the premises, the extent of which has yet to be fully assessed. Forensic examination of the scene is under way. The police believe that a large explosive device had been left in or near the doorway of the club. No one has claimed responsibility for this attack, but it seems to have been the work of the IRA.
"The emergency services reacted with great speed, arriving within minutes of the explosion. I pay tribute to them. It should always be remembered that they face the additional hazard of risk of injury or death from secondary devices designed to kill those who come to save life.
"The House is united in condemning this attack. Following the recent one on Lord McAlpine's former residence it looks as if the IRA are being driven to attack different sorts of targets. Whether they strike at military or civilian targets, barracks or private homes, they are attacking democracy itself and they do not care who is killed or injured in the process.
1458
"This apparent change of tactics requires renewed vigilance on the part of everyone. For their part, the police are constantly reviewing the means by which the threat, as it varies, can be met. I have this morning discussed developments with the Commissioner and there is absolutely no doubt about the determination of his force, and other police forces in the United Kingdom, to continue to do everything possible to prevent such outrages and to track down the perpetrators. The House should be aware that much is done every day of the week to prevent and deter and to combat terrorist activity and most of its cannot be safely revealed. But terrorists operate by stealth, surprise and with a callous disregard for life, and from time to time they may register what by their perverted standards they regard as a success. It is not something against which, in a free society, anyone can provide an absolute guarantee.
"What is needed to support the efforts of the police is renewed and constant vigilance on the part of every citizen. I ask people to report any packages left in public places and suspicious behaviour by individuals. They must not be worried about troubling the police unnecessarily.
"We have been here before with the bomb attacks against the public in the 1970s. They did not succeed then. Nor will they now."
4.9 p.m.
Lord Mishcon:My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating that sombre Statement. Perhaps I may at once, on behalf of every single person sitting on the Benches behind me, register our sympathy with noble Lords opposite. On an occasion such as this there are only physical divisions in your Lordships' House.
We should also like to extend our sympathy to those who were injured and to wish them a speedy recovery. At this moment we are thinking especially of the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry. I have it on very reliable authority that he is doing well, and we are all delighted to hear that. Perhaps I may sound a personal note. Exactly 40 years ago the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, was my political opponent in north-west Leeds in the 1950 election. I should like your Lordships to know that apart from his political views and the fact that he won, he has always had my unstinted admiration.
Rightly, the noble Lord the Leader of the House repeated the Home Secretary's praise for the auxiliary services. Not only did they arrive promptly on the scene but they were magnificent in freeing people from the debris. We on this side of the House admire and praise them.
As was said by the head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad this morning, the Statement indicates that the tactics of the IRA appear to have shifted from attacks on soft military targets to attacks on private subjects. It is right that admonition and warnings should be given. It is also right that the public should be advised to assist the authorities where possible by reporting anything of an extraordinary nature such as a suspect package or suspicious behaviour. Perhaps the noble Lord the

1459
Leader of the House and those responsible for such matters can think of a way of bringing them closer to the attention of the public without creating a feeling of panic or giving the impression, which none of us wishes to give, that the IRA is disrupting the whole of our affairs. It is not, and it will not.
During the course of reading the Statement the Leader of the House said that no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. The word "claimed" appears to indicate that someone is out to claim merit for something that has been done. If, unfortunately, we have to announce a similar incident in the future I suggest that we should use the words "admitted responsibility" and not "claimed".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Home Secretary's Statement. On behalf of Members on these Benches, I express regret for the injury caused to the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, and to others by this despicable attack.
Is the noble Lord aware of our admiration for the work of the emergency services—the ambulancemen, the firemen and the policemen? Last night they entered the building despite the ever-present risk of a second explosion. I understand that some American visitors were injured. I am sure that I express the hope of all Members of the House in saying that those in the United States who give financial support to the Provisional IRA should consider the character of the organisation that they are backing. It is deplorable that after attacks on innocent citizens in this country a fund-raising organisation remains in existence in the United States and is generously supported by many American citizens. Is the Leader of the House aware of our strong approval of the words of the United States ambassador in describing as contemptible the acts of the Mayor of New York who has seen fit to name a street in New York after a convicted IRA terrorist?
Is the noble Lord further aware of our agreement with the Home Secretary? It is essential that the public should inform the police immediately of any suspect packages or suspicious behaviour by anyone. In the light of the increasingly vicious campaign by the IRA, those responsible for the security of buildings which may be seen by the IRA as being soft targets should immediately review their security arrangements.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of my right honourable friend's Statement. I am particularly grateful for the sympathy they expressed and the mention of my noble friend Lord Kaberry. It will take more than this to get him down and I am sure that he will be back among us.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right to ask whether the Government can think of ways to encourage greater vigilance. I content myself by saying that that is one of the reasons for the
1460
Statement being made this afternoon. I hope that members of the public will think along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, as indeed will the Government. I take his point about the word "admitted". This was a cruel attack which will not alter our resolve to combat terrorists in the United Kingdom until terrorism is no more.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his comments about fund-raising abroad. He rightly quoted the condemnation of such activities by the United States ambassador. I cannot improve upon the noble Lord's concluding words about the need for eternal and active vigilance.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, to his enormous regret my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, who is chairman of the Carlton Club, is unable to be present. He has asked me, as his predecessor, to say a few words on behalf of the club. I too thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. To members of the Carlton Club it is important, and in its wider implications it is probably a Statement of considerable national importance. On behalf of my noble friend and the members of the club, I too express gratitude to the police and the fire service who responded with great speed and their habitual courage in order to rescue injured people and to do what they could to rectify the situation.
I am glad to be able to confirm from fairly recent information that my noble friend Lord Kaberry is making good progress. I have similar good news about the porter, Mr. Henry, who is the other seriously injured person. Recent reports of both are excellent.
The club has no intention of being put down in any sense—except the purely physical and structural—by any episode of this kind. Curiously enough, it is almost 50 years since the Carlton Club in its premises in Pall Mall was bombed by another enemy of this country. As your Lordships know, it recovered from that seemingly complete disaster and in circumstances which involved the safety of half of the Cabinet of the day, although I suppose that there may be differing views in this House. The club will not be deterred by the incident. The building will be repaired and the club will continue to serve the causes that it has served during the years. It will provide a home and a friendly meeting place for many members of the public as well for those who are politically interested.
Although it will be some time before the necessary physical repairs can be effected, the club has every intention of continuing as a living and active entity. We hope that members of the public and those who are inconvenienced by the situation will understand and that they will be as helpful as possible. For many of us this is a tragic episode. It was wholly unnecessary: it is impossible to express the depth of one's feelings about it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his intervention, and on behalf of the Government I should simply like to offer sympathy not only to

1461
members of the club but also to its staff. I suggest that this is an occasion when the whole House will say that we are pleased that rebuilding is to take place.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I should like to echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and by my noble friend Lord Mishcon regarding those who have been injured in this barbarous act. I am personally sorry to hear of the injuries sustained by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry. I hope that he, together with all others affected, will fully recover.
The killing of civilians by the Provisional IRA is no charge of policy: the Grand Hotel at Brighton, Enniskillen and the Australians in Europe are all proof of that. Your Lordships will perhaps be aware that the old Irish Republican Army contained Irish rebellious elements and their battle was versus the British Army. They regarded the battle as a form of traditional warfare. But when the Provisional IRA broke away from the Official IRA they embarked upon killing the RUC and prison officers—that is, the supporters of the security forces—and thereafter they killed civilians who were building prisons or police stations. So killing civilians by the IRA is not new.
What is different, in my opinion, is the type of Irish terrorist who is now recruited and involved. In place of what might be regarded as the old traditional army terrorist, with the occasional attack on the established authority which caused some civilian casualties, we now have a younger breed of mindless, adventurous militants, addicted to the adventure and thrill of bombing and killing and taking on unguarded establishments. They do not have to be trained or to be sophisticated: thrill of the kill is sufficient. That, in my opinion, is a distinct change. A small band of reckless terrorists of that kind can create havoc in any of the cities in our land. I believe that is their goal. Therefore eternal vigilance is absolutely necessary by everybody at all times, with special attention being given by those who are in a position of surveillance and concerned with the security of persons, enterprises and local and government establishments.
Finally, it is imperative that the public should be totally aware that these terrorists are in their midst, and suspicious activities of any kind such as Irish people hiring cars, booking short-term stays in guest houses, using lock-up garages for short periods at a time, and so on, must be reported to the police. Harassment pays, and although some innocents may be perturbed and affected, chasing the terrorists will certainly pay. On the whole they have been harassed and chased out of Northern Ireland. Now that they are here, we have to do the same in Great Britian.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, with his background of very distinguished service as Secretary of State in Northern Ireland, has thought it right to intervene. I agree with him that attacks on the civilian population by the IRA are not new. I only add that I believe they have no friends of any credibility.
1462
Perhaps I may say on behalf of the Government that the Statement deliberately was not too long and could not accommodate the kind of advice which the noble Lord gave in his intervention. Therefore it was very valuable that he should do so. Eternal vigilance is the watchword and so also are the necessary powers for the police in that connection. Again I say on behalf of the Government that I believe the Prevention of Terrorism Act remains an essential part of our armour. However, perhaps we ought not to pursue these matters too far now. I should like to thank noble Lords for their responses to this sombre Statement.

Environmental Protection Bill
4.25 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 47 [Waste recycling plans by collection authorities]:
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("waste collection authority") and insert ("waste regulation authority').
The noble Lord said: With this amendment should be taken Amendments Nos. 207A, 209A, 210ZA and 210A. The Bill places a duty on waste collection authorities to produce waste recycling plans together with powers, along with waste disposal authorities, to recycle waste. The waste regulation authority has the duty to prepare a waste disposal plan. This division of responsibility is unfortunate. There is no clear and coherent strategy for recycling as between the three authorities. Waste disposal authorities need to plan for the disposal of collected waste, and to do that effectively they need to know the likely volume of waste that the collection authorities could divert from the waste stream for recycling.
Disposal facility operators need to know the volume of waste they are going to receive for some years ahead if they are to make informed investment decisions. Furthermore, it is important that there are no inconsistencies between the waste recycling plans that each collection authority prepares. There is thus a need fully to integrate disposal plans with recycling plans, and a need to ensure a coherent approach to recycling across each county as a whole. The authority best placed to do that is the waste regulation authority. This amendment would ensure much better co-ordination of key waste management arrangements. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: These amendments, as my noble friend explained, would switch the responsibility for preparing and implementing recycling plans from waste collection authorities to waste regulation authorities. In our view that would be an unsatisfactory change, for the following reasons.
Waste collection authorities, which are mainly district councils, are in the front line in dealing with household waste. They empty our dustbins, usually, and many provide or service the local facilities

1463
associated with recycling, such as bottle banks. Many already have arrangements with contractors to take away recyclable materials, and some noble Lords may be acquainted with the excellent schemes run by many councils. They have local contact with all the people who make recycling work: local shops and firms, schools and legions of committed volunteers. We want to see this activity spread so that all councils come up to the standard of the best. That is the purpose of requiring them to draw up and implement local waste recycling plans. These amendments would have the effect of removing that requirement.
Waste regulation authorities, to which the amendment would transfer this responsibility, are very different animals, operating as they do at county level. In their way they are equally important for recycling, but their role is not to draw up local detailed recycling plans like the collection authorities; it is to take a wider strategic view of what happens to all waste arising in their area. Although they are required to have regard to the desirability of giving priority to recycling waste, they are not in a position to adopt the local approach of the districts.
I hope that on reflection my noble friend will agree that collection authorities are the right organisations to draw up and implement local waste recycling plans.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, which I will pass on to the people who are interested in these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 51, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) in accordance with guidance with the Secretary of State, to investigate the extent of the market for recycled products deriving from the waste;
( ) to consider what arrangements it could reasonably make to stimulate the market for recycled products in its area;").
The noble Lord said: We are dealing with Clause 47, which sets out the duty of each waste collection authority. Subsection (1)(a) to (e) sets out what the responsibilities of the waste collection authorities should be.
We suggest in the amendment that two further small additions should be made: first, to investigate the extent of the market for recycled products deriving from the waste and, secondly, to consider what arrangements the local authority can reasonably make to stimulate the market for such products in its area. The amendment would oblige a waste collection authority when drawing up its plans to investigate the extent of the market for recycled products derived from the waste that it collects and the ways in which it could stimulate the market in its area.
Those of us whose wives collect waste paper all know from experience that at times the market collapses. It is in a collapsed state at the moment. I
1464
suspect that a great deal of paper that has been stored in barns is probably about to be dumped in holes in the ground because there is no market for it at present, although it will revive later. If we could achieve some consistency in the matter, it would be an enormous advantage. We also know that tin cans are not wanted, but that aluminium cans are wanted. There is a bottle bank in my town, but nowhere to put cans. There is a well-organised collection point for cans in the next market town, but unfortunately it is 10 miles away.
The most important step in a recycling programme is market research. Without it, the programme will fail and people who were once keen to take part will become disillusioned. That is exactly the description that I used on Second Reading. People collect things thinking that they will be recycled; but they then find, to their horror, that the items have gone nowhere and have simply been dumped. Before putting a waste recycling plan into effect, the authority should carry out such market research. It should also examine how it can stimulate the market by, for example, using more recycled products itself—we should do that in this place—and by encouraging others to do so. When local authorities have premises to let, they should try to ensure that the firms which take those premises make some use of their waste products. The Secretary of State should draw up national guidance as to the overall market for recycled products, and should help the authorities by giving them that information and so assist them in drawing up or modifying their plans.
Amendment No. 206ZA is consequential. It contains a printing error. The word "on" should read "or" so that the amendment reads:
"the recycling, or the facilitating of the recycling of waste".
I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Without committing myself to the terms of the amendment—I am not quite sure how it would work—I should like to say that in my opinion the noble Lord has done a valuable service in drawing attention to the inadequacy of some of our existing arrangements for dealing with waste.
For example, I suspect that, like me, all noble Lords live in an ocean of paper that comes through the post. Being a keen conservationist, I save all my paper. I have saved about half a tonne in the past 18 months. I keep it in a shed. I have become rather tired of taking small quantities in my own car to a waste paper factory 15 miles away. That is the nearest one, as I live out in the country five miles from Huntingdon. The people in the waste factory say that, if I get a tonne, they might collect; it depends what other loads they have to collect. They would like three tonnes. I reckon that it will take me a good many years to collect that amount.
That is a serious and practical point. It would save trees galore, carbon dioxide and all sorts of things, if we collected our waste paper and recycled it. However, turning aside from that, the noble Lord's suggestion that we need more bottle banks is a valuable one. It is not difficult to keep boxes in which wine bottles arrive, to use them to put the

1465
empty bottles in after they have been consumed, put them in one's car, and, as one passes through a town where there is a bottle bank, shove them into it. However, as I understand it, not many towns have them, especially in convenient places where you can park your car nearby. The best place to have one is at a car park.
In my own mind I cannot quite fit the machinery that is described in the amendment into the Bill; but I shall be interested to hear what one of my noble friends may have to say about the matter. I hope that he will have something encouraging to say.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. It would add substantially to the clause that we are debating.
I should explain that I have an interest in these matters as I am president of the UK Reclamation Council. The Council represents those sectors of industry concerned with paper, metals, glass, and so on, which are interested in stimulating recycling, not only as part of their own activities but to obtain the full support of the public.
One point has been clear throughout our deliberations; namely, that the state of the market for recycled products must be well known by all concerned. That was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred in connection with his assiduous collection of waste paper. People are not particularly well advised on those matters. If clear guidance could be given at the regional and local level by the authorities as to which areas of recycling were important at any one time and they could consider ways in which those could be stimulated, that would be most helpful. The amendments add considerable force to the clause.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rcss—Amendment No. 206—raises an issue of fundamental importance. There is no point in collecting and processing recyclable waste if there is no end market. As he rightly pointed out, all you get are soggy stockpiles of newspapers, and can and glass mountains. You also get many disheartened consumers who see their efforts to segregate waste literally going to waste.
Our approach has been to look at recycling as a loop with the consumer at the beginning and the end. At the household level, we have put in place the right collection and sorting systems and we are backing a number of pilot schemes. The waste collection authority must have the right facilities to deal with waste collected and can also help with providing and servicing what are called "bring" systems such as bottle banks. Next in the loop are the local companies which process waste and pass it on to the manufacturers who produce new materials. In some cases—for example, with glass—the middleman may be bypassed by the glass manufacturer himself. Finally, there is Mr. and Mrs. Green, again buying and using recycled products.
The markets for each waste stream can be very different. Paper is an internationally traded commodity and its price can fluctuate considerably. At the moment, the price of waste newspaper is very
1466
low, although that for other types of paper, such as computer paper, is holding up well. Most types of glass are in demand, and the aluminium and steel can manufacturers could take a great deal more cans and offer a guaranteed price for them.
We are encouraged that, subject to the necessary clearances, the new owners of Reedpack, the paper company, intend to go ahead with a major investment at Aylesford in Kent. That plant will produce newsprint with 100 per cent. recycled waste paper content. If that goes ahead, it will greatly increase the capacity to process waste newspaper and will mean the end of the current glut which, I am well aware, has been the subject of a number of Questions in the House over the past 18 months.
Turning back to the amendment, I am always impressed by the versatility of local authorities. However, I do not regard market researching as one of their fortes. Naturally, they will come to know about the local market for recycled materials, but it would place too much of a burden on them to go in for formal market investigation. However, I agree with the implication of the amendment that central government should, wherever possible, help local authorities to find a market for recycled goods. That is why we set up an expert advisory group on recycling with membership from local authorities as well as industry and voluntary organisations.
That group split into several teams which investigated the markets for different recyclable commodities in depth.
The exchange of information was extremely valuable. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry are currently considering how to carry forward the findings of these teams and how to keep up an effective exchange of information about market issues.
Under the current wording of Clause 47, waste collection authorities will be required to carry out an investigation of arrangements for dealing with waste for the purpose of recycling it. They are required to report on those arrangements in the recycling plan. Amendment No. 206ZA in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Addington, would restrict the scope of the plan to a report on recycling arrangements without covering the essential preparatory work of sorting and baling recyclable waste.
Waste collection authorities must look at the arrangements for waste separation and sorting in their area. We are currently working with local authorities to investigate, for example, the extent to which source separation of waste by householders is desirable or feasible. I recently opened such a scheme in Milton Keynes. Waste recycling plans must necessarily take such issues into account.
I hope I have not detained the Committee too long. The amendments raise a central issue of importance. In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will not find it necessary to press the amendment to a Division.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and my noble friend Lord Renton raised the matter of bottle banks. At present there are 4,000 bottle banks in the United Kingdom. We hope to raise that figure to 10,000 by

1467
the end of the century along with our stated desire of achieving 50 per cent. recyclability.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, replies perhaps I could make one further point which arises from the response of my noble friend regarding the low price of waste paper. I firmly believe in market economies. But we have a dilemma here. It is a dilemma increasingly recognised by the Labour Party for which I give that party credit. The more efficient the collection of waste paper becomes the lower the price is likely to fall. We must not allow the collection of waste paper to be impeded or delayed by the fall in the market price.
I cannot expect my noble friend to answer that dilemma immediately, but I hope that it will be borne in mind that the effective collection of waste paper must not be impeded by the operation of the market price.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, replies, perhaps I may say that I am fascinated by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I commend to him my Amendment No. 207B, which I believe answers the point that he raised.
Lord Hesketh: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, responds, perhaps I could draw my noble friend's attention to the proposed plant in Kent. The key problem regarding newsprint is not a question of subsidy or financial encouragement; it is the physical availability of the plant to process the soggy pile of paper about which my noble friend is concerned. One hopes that when the plant is completed, there will be capacity in excess of the available market which will result not merely in an underpinning, but an increase in the price in the United Kingdom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the Minister suggesting that the garage of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, leaks?
Lord Ross of Newport: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for their contributions, I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his support. The government response is good news. I know that the Minister is particularly pleased with what is shortly to happen in Kent because it will put a bottom into the market.
However, I find it sad when two private individuals—young men—start up in business collecting newspapers for recycling. They buy a van and set the business up but the whole thing collapses and they go bust. That is very sad. I believe that local authorities could help in such a situation by providing storage and similar facilities, pending a revival of the market.
The Minister gave a very full reply. I realise that the amendment may damage some aspects of baling and packaging. I do not want to do that. It is a good clause and I congratulate the Government on their approach. I am also interested in the guidance the
1468
Government are receiving from their committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206ZA not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 51, line 32, at end insert ("having regard to any scheme drawn up under section (Subsidy far waste recycling) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 206A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 207B and 210B. The first two are consequential upon Amendment No. 210B, which is the new clause after Clause 47 providing for a subsidy for waste recycling.
I was greatly encouraged by interventions in the previous debate, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Once again the noble Lord proclaimed his devotion to market economics and suggested that we might agree with him. That led me to indicate to him that he may find virtue in our Amendment No. 210B. I also invite him to contrast Amendment No. 210B with the government amendment on a similar subject, Amendment No. 222A. It was not decided to group one with the other but that could have been done.
There is already recognition that the operation of the market pure and simple is not adequate to provide for a flourishing recycling industry. That is borne out by statements including that of the Minister in his response to the last amendment. In turn, a flourishing recycling industry is necessary to ensure that there is enough impetus on the orginators of recyclable waste to prepare and collect that waste for recycling. No less a body than the Recycling Advisory Group of the Department of Trade and Industry—not noted for its references to market failures—points out the following. Changes in commodity prices, to which the Minister referred when talking of the prices for different types of paper, aluminium cans, glass and so forth, make the recycling firms highly vulnerable to swings in commodity prices. That, as they say,
"is not a market failure but a genuine reflection of risk".
Something must be done if the market is to be given the necessary support in order to provide for the continuity of supply and disposal of recyclable materials which will be necessary if we are to achieve the targets which, to do them credit, the Government set for themselves in improving our record on recycling.
Amendment No. 222A contains a recycling credit proposal which in effect shifts funds around within the recycling process. That is perfectly valid. If we are reduced to that, I shall not oppose that amendment. However, I want to put to the Committee—particularly to the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Renton—that we are proposing a market-led solution. We are proposing that subsidies should be used to encourage the use of recycled material. In other words, they should be aimed at the end product of the recycling process rather than shifting money around in the intermediate stages. The second is not necessarily ruled out by the first; the second may well be valuable. We shall support

1469
the proposal; but to encourage the use of recycled materials—which is the purpose of Amendment No. 206A—by the kind of subsidies set out in that amendment is the real contribution which can be made to recycling. Everything else, however worthy, is secondary.
If the Minister convinces me that the wording of Amendment No. 206A is defective, but that the Government accept the principle and will bring forward suitably worded amendments to achieve our objectives at a later stage, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, the amendment deserves the serious consideration of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may say that while I appreciate the constructive spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, speaks to his amendments, it is really Amendment No. 210B that we should consider. His first two amendments are paving ones.
There are two matters on which I shall be grateful for enlightenment. It may be my ignorance, but can the noble Lord explain what is a waste producer? Who is a waste producer? It is rather an ambiguous term. I am a producer of waste. I collect paper and I submit it to a factory which disposes of it. I am producing the waste paper and therefore I am a waste producer. Is that what the noble Lord means in this amendment? I do not think that it can be because it does not fit in with the meaning of the amendment.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a clear mind on this matter. He refers to subsidies. They can take various forms; for example, they can take the form of a capital grant for establishing equipment for recycling purposes; it can take the form of a price subsidy, or form a guarantee in case the market price falls. What kind of subsidy does the noble Lord have in mind? That is fundamental to his argument.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may offer one or two comments on the matter. In doing so, I declare an interest. I am chairman of a company which acts as an agent for the importation into this country of paper from Scandinavia. The paper industry in this country is increasingly alive and alert to all the various problems of pollution and conservation. It has a very close interest in these matters.
I wish to make two points and then to comment on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. A great deal has been said about waste paper. There are two points to be made about it which Members of the Committee should have in mind. I was very interested to hear of the plan by Reedpack which my noble friend mentioned in connection with the last amendment. There is a similar proposal using the Gartcosh Mill in Scotland. Originally it was a Scottish company, but I understand that it has now been bought by a Canadian paper company. It too tends to produce large quantities of paper based on waste paper.
The fact is that with existing technology it is probably not feasible to consider the production of
1470
paper based entirely on recycled paper. There are two reasons. The de-inking processes that are necessary to produce an acceptable shade of paper for most, but not all, uses are still not perfected. A good deal of research is being done on this matter. As Members of the Committee can imagine, the kind of process that is needed to extract the inks of a variety of different chemical formulations, colours and consistencies from a heterogeneous collection of paper is not a simple process. De-inking is more than a rudimentary process but it still has a long way to go before it can produce a paper which is acceptable alongside paper made from fresh pulp.
What is more serious is one of the inherent characteristics of the fibre which goes to make up paper. There is a limit to the number of times any particular fibre can be recycled and still retain the inherent strength which is essential for virtually every use of paper. It is for that reason that hitherto it has been found practicable, when considering the use of recycled paper, to employ a mixture of new fibre, which may be chemical or ground wood pulp, with a certain amount of recycled paper. One of the common percentages is that about 60 per cent. of recycled paper requires 40 per cent. of new pulp in order to provide an acceptable product.
I shall be interested to know about the Reedpack plan. It may be that it will try to produce a quality of paper where it is possible to use a proportion of recycled paper higher than the 60 per cent. I have just mentioned. It is quite clear that, hitherto, for most commercial and domestic uses paper that has been entirely recycled has an obvious attraction for, if I may use my noble friend's phrase, Mr. and Mrs. Green. The fact of the matter is that, if I am not putting it too bluntly, you end up by putting your finger through it. It may also produce a form of newsprint which looks rather tatty. That means that, because of competition in the market, people will not, except as a green gesture, buy magazines printed on that kind of paper. Therefore, there must be a note of caution about how effective this measure will be in the present state of technology.
That brings me to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As a former Treasury Minister, I have some hesitation in embracing what appears to be an open-ended subsidy. I recognise that he has done his best to include a variety of controls and has given the Secretary of State the right to amend the scheme and, presumably, to withdraw it. If one provides an open-ended subsidy between the producer and the consumer, it is contrary to all experience to imagine that the difference in prices will remain a constant or anything approaching a constant or that the suppliers, the purchasers and the market will not automatically adjust their prices to the fact that there is the injection of a subsidy.
At the moment there are large quantities of waste paper lying about. I share exactly the experience of my noble friend, Lord Renton. I have a barn which at the moment is piled high with paper and it is impossible to persuade anyone to take it away. There is a suggestion that there should be payment to close the gap so that it is then worth while for someone to collect the paper. However, once one opens the

1471
door to a scheme of that kind, all one's experience suggests that there are plenty of people who are going to climb on the bandwaggon. All the other prices will move in response to the existence of the subsidy. In the end one may finish up in much the same position as before, but with a substantial volume of public expenditure added. When the scheme does not work and it is withdrawn, there will be an enormous row and everyone will say that the Government are being wicked in withdrawing the subsidy.
I look at this scheme with a very great deal of caution. I confine my remarks to waste paper, though there may be other waste products where the scheme may be more relevant. I believe that the Government's scheme is perfectly reasonable because it does not involve the injection of new money. In fact, they are making sure that the costs and benefits of the whole process are shared in ways which will lead people to behave as we should like them to do in the interests of reclamation. That is perfectly appropriate.
Once the tap is opened for new money, it is surprising how quickly and effectively some of the people in this kind of trade will take advantage. The flow from the tap will become a flood and then the tap will have to be turned off. I do not believe that is a position that any government would wish to get into. I shall listen with great care to what my noble friend says and to the reply by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, for the moment he has not convinced me that his scheme is practicable.
Lord Ross of Newport: I was attracted to this amendment not because of paper but because of used tyres. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that recycled paper is very good for toilet rolls and also it provides a great deal of writing material. I hope that many more people will use it. At long last I have got my wife buying it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I entirely agree. In 1984 I was the first Secretary of State to get a government department to use nothing but recycled paper. That was the Department of the Environment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: This is very absorbing!
Lord Ross of Newport: I am delighted to hear that news and I congratulate the noble Lord.
In my Second Reading speech I drew attention to the number of tyre dumps in this country. There is one within a mile or two of where I live. It is called Motorway Remoulds. Eighty per cent. of the tyres which come off lorries on motorways are not in a good enough condition to be remoulded. Unfortunately, they are dumped. In my area they are dumped in a beautiful valley. The dump is 60 feet high and growing. There is a scheme in the Midlands to set up a recycling plant. An American company has actually applied for planning permission.
I can see a case for subsidising a firm to hold onto the tyres instead of dumping them in the valley.
1472
Perhaps it would be better to call them financial incentives rather than subsidies. There would then be a continuation of supply so that firms that were recycling could be sure of getting that supply. If there comes a time when firms stockpile, perhaps they will then look to a local authority to give them financial assistance in that regard. The local authority will be saving money, as will the National Rivers Authority.
Because some idiot is believed to have set fire to the dump to which I referred, or perhaps because of internal combustion, we now have to have permanent checks on it to ensure that the streams around it are not permanently polluted. Some pollution has occurred. Such checks cost money too.
I recognise that the Treasury would be horrified at the thought of subsidies. When I was in local government I can well remember firms such as Plessey knocking on my door and saying, "What financial goodies do you have for us?" I was horrified. What the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said is perfectly true. If one opens the door slightly, all kinds of people appear, many of whom could do without any subsidy at all. I agree that that is one of the drawbacks. On the other hand, if we are serious about trying to get recycling going on a permanent basis so that there is no lack of supply of materials—waste paper, tyres, aluminium, cans or glass—the local authority should be in a position to step in on occasion and perhaps hold the fort by providing some small subsidy. That is why I like the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Disregarding the Treasury and the recycling credit amendments which come later, we have touched on the importance of getting the market right for recycled materials. There are always ways of helping the market along, and the system of recycling credits which we hope to introduce through a later amendment will, we hope, do just that. We can help through changing public procurement policies and other such measures. I am pleased to tell the Committee that the Department of the Environment is continuing to pay a reasonable premium for recycled paper and to review its policy on specifying materials in order to favour recycled goods. We very much hope that other public bodies and private companies will adopt a similar policy of positive discrimination.
This amendment adopts a different approach. It would provide for subsidies to be paid by waste collection authorities to waste producers or others in order to keep up the supply of recyclable waste. The Secretary of State would cover any shortfall. In a way that is a market manipulation. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he describes it as a market solution. In a way it is a command economy for recyclables. Recyclable materials are goods in the market. That market is in some cases international. Attempts in West Germany and the United States to insulate one waste stream—paper—from the market by pumping in price subsidies contributed to the worldwide collapse of the low grade paper market. What we need to do is to make recycling a natural, economic and environmental option by creating a level playing

1473
field through raising landfill standards and hence costs and by ensuring that the economic benefits of recycling get to those who are bringing it about and by improving collection and sorting systems.
It is true to say that I rarely disagree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I agreed with very nearly everything he said. However, on one item I have to inform him that he may be slightly incorrect. It is possible to achieve higher standards than 70 per cent. retrieved newsprint. I am told that even the Morning Star is produced on over 70 per cent. retrieved newsprint.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understands that, while we resist the amendment, we do not resist the principle of recycling in the amendments that he has put forward. We just believe that the credit system that will come later is a preferable solution to answer part of the problem.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies I think that he may now be in a better position to give us an idea of what kind of subsidy he has in mind and also to answer my question. What is a waste producer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has made it difficult to conduct an effective debate because he has specifically excluded his own recycling credits amendment, Amendment No. 222A. If it had been up to me I would have wished to have the two amendments debated together. We would then have had a more effective debate.
We are discussing a number of different ways of trying to achieve an objective which we all share. We are looking at what ways are likely to be most effective, least onerous and least likely to lead to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, fears, which is an open-ended commitment for the public purse. I certainly agree with him that that would be most undesirable. But we have not exhausted the options open to us if we really want to achieve a greater degree of recycling.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of the recommendations of the DTI Recycling Advisory Group. Many of them were a good deal more draconian than that which I have just put forward in my amendments. The Department of Trade and Industry Recycling Advisory Group listed three options which I have not put forward to the Committee today. First, it suggested that there should be compulsory recycling and that it should be an offence not to recycle materials under certain circumstances. Secondly, it suggested that public procurement policies should be devoted to recycling. In 1984 the Department of the Environment went over to recycled paper—and all credit to it and all credit to the Secretary of State—but that example has not been followed by all government departments. It would achieve considerable results if public procurement policy were consistently and universally devoted to recycling.
The third option, which is the closest to that which we are recommending, was that there should be subsidy for the build-up of buffer stocks—in other words, payment to build up a usable stock, which comes right back to the collection forming in the
1474
garage of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and in the barn of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is close to what we are trying to do in Amendment No. 210B, which is to create a market.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked whether our amendment involves a form of open-ended subsidy. I invite him to look forward to Amendment No. 222A, the government amendment on recycling credits. I suggest to him that that amendment involves a subsidy, first, in subsection (1) by waste collection authorities; and, secondly, in subsection (2) by waste disposal authorities. The only evidence of recoupment is in subsections (6) and (7), which deal with reimbursement of the cost of making arrangements for the disposal of industrial and commercial waste.
If the new clause is to be effective I suggest that there will be public money involved. There will be public money from the authorities—not directly from the Treasury—but in the end public money will be involved. I suspect that the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will apply to this amendment as well. Indeed, the Minister has in a sense confirmed that in his reply. He boasted of the Government's financial involvement in recycling. For example, it must be the case that it is not resource efficient to recycle CFCs, particularly from used refrigerators. But the Government have taken a creditable and laudable initiative in seeking to encourage the recycling of CFCs or the collection of CFCs in such a way that they do not damage the environment. That involves an open-ended public subsidy. The Treasury would identify it as such.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am sorry, but I feel that I must intervene at this point. However, I am willing to be corrected on what I have to say by my noble friend or anyone else. I do not call that recycling; it is taking necessary steps to protect the public from what would otherwise be very harmful material. I think that that has always been a perfectly proper expenditure of public money, as we know when we go back to the history of public health. I am not sure that the point the noble Lord is making is valid in the context of his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept and appreciate that distinction. However, as we shall come to realise when we deal with later amendments, much recycling could well be of waste which is contaminated or capable of contamination. The distinction is not quite as clear-cut as the noble Lord would have us believe.
I turn now to deal with the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I confirm that it was our intention in referring to "waste producers" to refer to industrial and commercial waste producers as regards those who would require a subsidy. I do not think that those who collect on their own behalf, whether filling their garages with paper, bottles, cans or whatever, are appropriate to receive a public subsidy. However, I can see that the wording of the amendment is not entirely clear. For that reason, if for no other, I do not propose to press it to a vote.
As regards the noble Lord's request for my definition of the limits which would be placed on

1475
the subsidies—I think that was the thrust of his point—the controls which are provided in the new clause for the Secretary of State to control the scheme are adequate for the purpose. There is no reason to fear that the Secretary for State will allow such a scheme to run away with public expenditure. However, if he did so, someone would undoubtedly insert the phrase "with the consent of the Treasury" into the legislation and then we would be safe and in order once again.
Because of the incomplete nature of this debate, I am not satisfied that we have received the kind of answer which we should have been given. I do not think that we have as yet come to the heart of the recycling issue. There will be many amendments put forward on this matter seeking to make improvements. In my view, this amendment makes a point which will need to be reverted to at a later stage. However, because of the difficulties which have been pointed out in regard to the precise wording of what is proposed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 206B:
Page 51, line 40, after ("cost") insert ("and savings").
The noble Lord said: The Government clearly expect recycling to increase through becoming increasingly financially attractive. Therefore I feel that they should have no objection to this and the other amendment in the grouping which make explicit the possibility that collecting waste for recycling could result in financial savings.
It is also important that authorities consider and calculate savings arising from the increased collection of waste for recycling. Waste collection authorities will have powers to pass such savings on to voluntary groups (which we must continue to encourage in this sector) and other bodies collecting waste for recycling. Waste disposal authorities will have a duty to pass such savings on to waste collection authorities. I attach considerable importance to this question of the calculation of savings arising from waste recycling. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has a perfectly reasonable and fair point in his Amendment No. 206B that a waste collection authority may actually make savings by implementing its waste collection plan, particularly in later years when it has got over the initial hump of expenditure on equipment or manpower. Some authorities already claim to be making a surplus on their recycling operations, although their methods of accounting do not always allow a clear assessment to be made.
The Bill certainly does not stop any authority from including details of savings in its plans. Indeed, one would expect any authority making substantial savings to shout it from the rooftops. The reason the provision specifically refers to costs is that the costs are the most significant item when it comes to the interchange between a local authority and the Department of the Environment over its capital and
1476
revenue expenditure. But we would hope that a waste collection authority would certainly include details of savings—or negative costs as they might be termed—in its plan, and I can undertake that we will include this point in guidance to local authorities.
Amendment No. 213A, which is also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seeks to require regulation authorities to take account of the savings as well as the cost of any arrangements proposed in their disposal plans. As I explained with regard to Amendment No. 206B, we are not convinced that adding the word "savings" is necessary. However, we should like to consider further the issue of the cost and savings of the arrangements set out in recycling and disposal plans. If the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his amendment, I can assure him that we shall return to these points at a later stage.
Lord Ezra: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. In view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 207 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 207A and 207B not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 208.
Page 52, line 6, after ("authorities") insert ("and waste disposal contractors").
The noble Earl said: This minor drafting amendment inserts an additional reference to "waste disposal contractors" into subsection (3)(d) of Clause 47. It is consequential on a similar amendment to Clause 48(1)(c) which the Government accepted in Committee in another place. It puts the intended meaning of the subsection beyond doubt; that is, that in drawing up their recycling plans, waste collection authorities in Scotland must include information about the recycling arrangements they expect to make with both waste disposal authorities and private contractors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 52, line 11, at end insert:
("(3A) It shall be the duty of the authority in preparing the plan and any modification of it to consult the waste disposal authority for its area and any person appearing to it to have an interest in the collection, recycling and disposal of waste in its area, and to take into consideration any representations made to it in the course of such consultations before determining the content of the plan or modification.").
The noble Lord said: The reasoning behind this amendment is quite simple. At present authorities have no statutory duty to consult anyone before drawing up waste recycling plans. The amendment would effectively mean that they would have to consult the waste disposal authority and any other bodies or individuals which are interested. The groups concerned could be the Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, any other local bodies or, for example, such groups as Friends of the Earth which have genuine environmental concerns and

1477
knowledge to back up such concerns. I suggest that the kind of consultation proposed should be undertaken for the simple reason that otherwise author ties may simply overlook such matters. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Under Clause 47, waste collection authorities are already required to carry out an investigation with a view to deciding what arrangements are appropriate before preparing a waste recycling plan. All plans have to be sent in draft to the Secretary of State for the Environment and it would be readily apparent if adequate consultation had not been carried out.
We are concerned that to impose a formal requirement such as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggests could set back the cause of recycling for the following reason. It is quite possible that a difference of opinion could arise between the waste collection authority and the waste disposal authority. Our policy is that the waste collection authority should have rights of first refusal on recyclable waste unless the disposal authority has an existing contract with a disposal contractor to recycle the waste. We want to protect those rights of first refusal.
The collection authority must of course let the disposal authority know what waste it intends to hold back for recycling. That requirement is incorporated in the Bill. But we believe that it would be wring to impose the formal burden of consultation on waste collection authorities, with all the bureaucratic machinery it would entail.
Consultation is somewhat like motherhood and apple pie. It seems cruel and heartless to oppose its spread. We believe that we should let collection authorities get on with the job of recycling rather than getting bogged down in elaborate consultation exercises. No decent plan could in any case be drawn up without adequate consultation and we therefore see no need to place such a formal requirement on the face of the Bill. In view of those reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Addington: The Minister's reply hinges on the fact that he believes that consultation could lead to greater delay and to bureaucratic obstacles being placed in the way of the recycling process. I agree that there is a danger of that; but I also believe that there is a danger in not listening to all those concerned. However, I should like to study what the Minister said before I decide what to do about the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 209A and 209B not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 52, line 25, at end insert:
("(c) to carry out its functions in conformity with any waste collection plan made for its area").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 220. Clause 47 provides that waste collection authorities should have a duty to prepare recycling plans. Subsection (5) requires them to publicise the plans and to send a copy to the waste disposal
1478
authority. However, the clause, as drafted, is defective as there is no duty on waste collection authorities to implement their recycling plans. It is pointless for authorities to be statutorily required to make plans setting out the policies for the exercise of their functions without then being required to exercise their functions in accordance with the plans that they make. The amendment adds that requirement to the end of subsection (5).
Amendment No. 220 relates to Clause 49. Clause 48 provides for waste regulation authorities to make waste disposal plans. Clause 49 imposes a duty on waste disposal authorities to arrange for the disposal of waste collected by waste collection authorities in accordance with Schedule 2 Part II. Although it might be considered implicit in Clause 49, it would be worthwhile seeking to ensure that the normal arrangements made by the waste disposal authority for disposal should be in accordance with the waste disposal plan for the area, which is what Amendment No. 220 asks for. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendment would require a waste collection authority to carry out its functions in conformity with any waste collection plan made for its area. I take it that by waste collection plan the noble Baroness has in mind the waste recycling plans to be drawn up by waste collection authorities under the provisions of Clause 47.
Baroness David: That is correct.
Lord Reay: In that case we have a great deal of sympathy with the underlying purpose of this amendment. In straightforward terms, it is saying that there is little point in a waste collection authority having a recycling plan if it does little or nothing about implementing it. The plan, after all, is intended to be an action document. That is why we brought forward Amendment No. 202, which, as the noble Baroness may recall, required a collection authority to have regard, in deciding what recycling arrangements to make, to its waste recycling plan. I suggest that that amendment, now incorporated in the Bill, has the same aim as that of the noble Baroness.
I should like to add that the Secretary of State for the Environment will see copies of waste recycling plans in advance so that he can raise with local authorities any instances of their recycling proposals being substantially out of step with their waste collection or disposal policy as a whole.
I turn now to Amendment No. 220. I fear that the amendment is a product of some confusion about the role of a waste disposal plan. We may not have done enought to clarify the exact status of those plans in the future. In that case, I should like to attempt to set the record straight. The first point to bear in mind is that disposal plans will be prepared by regulation authorities and not by disposal authorities. The regulation authority will identify the types and quantities of waste generated in its area. It will detail the existing and planned sites in the area licensed to deal with that waste. It will then estimate the number and type of new disposal facilities needed to deal with any expected increase

1479
in waste generated, taking account of existing facilities which may need replacement.
Regulation authorities will in that way be able to guide future investment in waste disposal facilities by giving a steer to disposal companies (local authority and private sector alike) about the future demand for new sites while also setting out the authority's policies on various disposal options, including recycling.
Regulation authorities are the only bodies which will have the necessary information, gained from their licensing role, to prepare a meaningful plan. Why then do we resist the amendment? The noble Baroness seeks to tie the decisions of the disposal authority, which has the job of arranging for the disposal of waste, to the plan made by the regulation authority.
As I have sought to explain, the role of the plan is mainly to guide investment in waste disposal facilities. Disposal plans should not be prescriptive. It is for the disposal authority to consider the various options open to it, taking account of the environmental and value-for-money factors. It is worth remembering that any disposal facility chosen will have anyway to be licensed by the regulation authority to the amendment's underlying aim is probably already met. With those points in mind, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Barlfour: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may say this. I was interested to hear the comments of my noble friend the Minister. However, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Clause 46 does not apply to Scotland, whereas Clause 47 does. Perhaps consequential amendments can be introduced on Report to include the important words added to the end of Clause 46(2) as a result of Government Amendment No. 202. Otherwise, I feel Scotland will be left out of that important provision. The point is a technical one.
Lord Reay: My noble friend always does careful research, and I should like to consider the point that he makes.
Baroness David: I have to confess that I was not here the other evening when Amendment No. 202 was discussed. I shall have to read that discussion with care to see whether that amendment fulfils the functions of Amendment No. 210. I thank the Minister for his full explanation on Amendment No. 220. I should like to read it before I decide whether I am convinced by it. I should also like to consult the Association of County Councils, which asked me to table the amendment, to see whether it is satisfied with the Minister's reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendments Nos. 210ZA and 210A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 47, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I might mention a small point which I possibly should have raised by
1480
way of an amendment. I hope that my noble friend will be able to deal with the matter. Clause 47(7) gives the authority power to decree timetables—obviously different timetables in different circumstances. I am told that the NCC has asked why there should not be one timetable covering all authorities, which would be a more effective way of dealing with the matter, rather than having a series of different timetables produced in different cases.
I do not know how far I can elaborate on that point. Clause 47 provides a welcome new process, but perhaps we should consider the matter between now and Report. My noble friend may be able to give me a brief explanation of why different timetables are thought appropriate for different authorities in different circumstances rather than one national timetable.
Lord Hesketh: I do not have the specific answer to my noble friend's point. I can assure him that if it is satisfactory I shall write to him immediately after this debate with the answer.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 210B not moved.]
Clause 48 [Waste disposal plans of waste regulation authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 211 and 211A not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 52, line 50, at end insert:
("( ) to determine and make public the period to which the plan in paragraph (c) above refers, and the timescale for the introduction of the proposed arrangements.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 212 I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 213, 214 and 218, the last of which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington. On Amendment No. 212, the Bill does not make it clear that local authorities should state in their plans the period of time for which they are planning ahead or by which they intend to implement that plan. Not all plans can be implemented by a particular date because authorities may have contracts that will not have expired by such a date. Therefore it must be for each authority to set its own period of implementation. The amendment will still allow local authorities to set their own timescale but it will ensure that they are required to set some timescale.
I believe that it is important to ensure that plans are not just vague statements of intent at some indeterminate future date but that real commitments with a stated time are put forward. Making the period publicly known will enable local residents and community organisations to find out what and when initiatives are planned to start. The local authority should also find this discipline useful as a means of establishing procedures for monitoring and evaluating progress.
Perhaps I may briefly also speak to Amendment No. 214. The Bill at present also does not make it clear that local authorities are expected to consult with local recycling agencies on the contents of their

1481
plans for waste recycling, although the Government have said that they ought to do so. The amendment would simply put this right and introduce such an obligation at the appropriate point. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Amendment No. 218 is another amendment primarily concerned with consultation. The Bill states that the authorities have a duty to consult those parties which are likely to be engaged,
"by way of trade or business in the disposal or treatment".
That includes the reclamation of controlled waste in the area. I suggest that other groups should be consulted. There is no reason why merely those involved in any form of business transaction or commerce concerned with waste should be consulted, as everybody has an interest in these reclamation issues in the context that everybody has a stake in the environment as a whole. I suggest that these groups should be included in any consultation if the business community is included.
Lord Hesketh: I apologise for the confusion and the delay in answering. It was entirely my fault. I thought that my noble friend Lord Reay was attending to this amendment but I realise that I am responsible. I humbly request the forgiveness of your Lordships' Committee and also of my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who was confused. He thought that I thought that he was dealing with the amendment.
Amendment No. 212 seeks to add a requirement that regulation authorities must make public the period to which the plan refers and when any proposed arrangements are to be introduced. I can appreciate and support the logic of the first of these aims. However, I feel it is a matter of common sense that plans include some detail of the period to which they refer. I would also draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (3)(a) of this clause, which requires plans to state the periods to which they relate, and the end of that subsection, which would allow the Secretary of State to modify this if it became necessary.
I do not accept the second aim of this amendment for the simple reason that the regulation authority will have no control over the implementation of arrangements made with contractors. Those arrangements will be between waste producers and contractors. The regulation authority's role will be to publish details of arrangements known to it and then to license and enforce waste disposal in its area.
Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seek to impose a duty on regulation authorities to consult such relevant interests and organisations as they consider appropriate about any modification to their plan. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (5) of Clause 48 which already imposes a similar duty and thus, we believe, makes these amendments superfluous.
Amendment No. 218, which will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, refers to widening the scope of the consultation about disposal plans to include other persons affected by the environmental impacts of the plan. We do not accept the need for such a duty to be imposed on regulation authorities.
1482
It would be in effect to widen the scope of the consultation to include everyone resident in the regulation authority's area. Clearly such a requirement would be impracticable. I can assure the noble Lord that regulation authorities will be required to give adequate publicity to their draft plan or to any modification thereafter to it. They will also be required to consider any representations made in response to the plan or modification, including representations made by the public. In this way everyone affected by a disposal plan will have been given the opportunity to make representations to the regulation authority about it. That is why we resist the amendments.
Lord Ezra: I wish to consider carefully what the noble Lord has just said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 213 to 214A not moved.]
Baroness Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 214B:
Page 53, line 35, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made under subsection (3) above require a waste regulation authority to have regard in drawing up any plan under this section to any likely changes in the kinds and quantities of controlled waste to be disposed of within its area as a consequence of any charges which the Secretary of State may require such an authority to make in respect of the use of virgin raw materials undergoing significant processing for conversion into goods or sources of energy.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 214B and 257C would enable the Secretary of State to use whatever means he thought appropriate to discourage the use of virgin materials in industry and commerce by reference to their presence in the waste stream. We are all agreed that the waste stream must be reduced. By this means of discouraging the use of virgin materials, and incidentally therefore encouraging the use of recycled materials, the objective would be achieved.
These measures would also be an incentive to producers to avoid unnecessary over-packaging. The latter problem has perhaps been over-stated in debates up to now, but nevertheless packaging accounts for 20 per cent. in weight of the waste stream. Anything that one can do towards reducing that is helpful.
I wish to draw attention to the wider problem of the need for all manufacturers of whatever product where possible to use recycled material and to avoid the use of virgin materials. I should have made clear that I am moving Amendment No. 214B and speaking to Amendment No. 257C. There is little more to be said. I do not believe that this aspect of the Bill has been explored in another place and I hope that the Minister may have a constructive answer for me. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may intervene briefly before my noble friend responds to the noble Baroness. One must be cautious about the wholesale condemnation of virgin materials—to use the expression in her amendment—and the preferability of using recycled materials.

1483
We must draw a distinction. There are virgin materials which are themselves renewable. I referred earlier to the paper industry. It is a fact, particularly in developed countries, that the production of timber for the purpose of making paper is becoming increasingly an entirely self-sustaining renewable process. Governments and regulatory authorities in many of the timber growing countries have a requirement, which they enforce in the most rigorous and stringent fashion, that whenever a tree is cut down for the purposes of the timber industry whether for the production of timber, board, paper or pulp, it must be replaced.
The country that I am best acquainted with in this context is Finland. Finland has a firm and strict regime with regard to its timber industry. Whenever forests are culled and trees are cut down, replanting must take place. The industry is perpetually renewable. In the south of the country it takes about 30 years for a larch or other tree to reach the stage when it can be used. In the north of the country that process takes rather longer, perhaps 40 or 50 years. Nevertheless each time a tree is cut down, it is replaced.
It is an important part of this whole argument that one should consider the source of paper. One should consider whether its source is a country which has a strict regime as regards its timber industry so that virgin products—I indicated earlier the advantages virgin products can have over some renewable products—are themselves perpetually renewable and self-sustaining.
One must also consider whether its source is a country which is a good deal less careful about creating a renewable timber industry and cuts swathes through its forests and does not replace them. The Americans are getting better at this, but not so long ago the tree fellers simply marched across the forests of Canada and the northern United States and left a wilderness behind them, with no thought of replanting. However, the timber industry in North America is now being dealt with much more effectively. The north Americans are following the lead of the Scandinavian countries.
I have every sympathy with the motives of the noble Baroness, but with the greatest respect I do not think it is right to condemn automatically so-called virgin materials. Those materials themselves may be environmentally extremely valuable. One could take the argument to the point of absurdity, and there is always a danger in that. What would happen, for example if one suddenly told large numbers of Scandinavians that no more trees were to be cut down? In that case those trees would reach the end of their lives, fall and rot. We would be back in the situation of the primeval forest from which mankind has hauled itself out over a series of millenniums. However, no one is asking us to go back to that state. We can cultivate our natural resources and use them sensibly and wisely. We can replace our forests, and that is an entirely proper and benign process. That should be recognised. A blanket distinction between virgin and recyled products does not seem to me to make a great deal of sense.
Baroness Nicol: I must respond to the noble Lord. For once in my life I was not defending forests, because I support the idea of a dynamic forestry industry and have done so for some time. There are many reasons for supporting such an industry, not least the fact that a young tree absorbs about 300 per cent. more carbon dioxide than a mature tree. Therefore there is a need to continue planting forests.
I did not concentrate solely on the paper industry. I was speaking rather about the waste stream and the need to reduce waste. That is a problem in this country at the moment. Apart from waste, we also have the problem of metals, many of which are reclaimable. However, they do not come from renewable sources. I wished to address my remarks to a wider area than just defending forests.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has proposed a resource tax with the intention of minimising the waste that we have to dispose of. She hopes that by making it more expensive to use virgin raw materials people will use less of them and that they will switch to using recycled raw materials. She intends too that the beneficiary of the tax will be the waste regulation authorities, although she does not say what those small bodies would do with the large sums of money that could be generated by even a minimal tax applied throughout the UK industry.
I submit that the proposed tax would have two principal effects. The first would be to increase inflation. There is only one way that manufacturers of products that are affected could raise the money to pay the tax and that is by passing on increased prices to their customers.
The other effect would be to encourage people to switch to imported products that were unaffected by the resource tax. I shall let the Committee speculate on the impact that this would have on our balance of payments. The amendment might achieve its intended effect of encouraging people to recycle waste instead of disposing of it in other ways, but only if the material was there in the first place. I am convinced that tampering with the operation of market forces would not be a recipe for success. In this case, there will be an immediate rush by manufacturers to lay their hands on the finite supplies of recycled waste. What happens when an item is in short supply and in demand? Its price rises. So again I believe the effect will be inflationary.
A scheme such as is proposed by this amendment would be unfair in its impact on different parts of the country. Post-consumer waste arises in similar amounts all over the country depending only on the number of people living in an area, but if manufacturing industry had to pay a tax to its waste regulation authority, the proceeds would be concentrated in the traditional manufacturing regions while the more rural parts of the country would lose out. I cannot believe that the proposal of the noble Baroness would work. Economic measures to encourage the proper management of waste may be a possibility but they cannot be introduced like this in a piecemeal fashion. They must be fully evaluated an all possible implications considered.

1485
One tax imposed in isolation will cause far more harm than good. That is why we are taking a more cautious but, I suggest, sensible approach by leaving the whale question to be covered by the White Paper on the environment which is to be published this autumn That will allow everyone to take a rational look at all the options and to come up with a workable system.
I ask the Committee to consider whether Amendment No. 257C adds anything to the already extensive guidance that is set out in Clause 48. There is already a duty on the waste regulation authority under subsection (3) to include in the plan information as to the kinds and quantities of waste arising in the area and moving into or out of the area as well as the waste that the authority expects will be disposed of in the area. If a waste regulation authority did not have regard to the effects of such a fundamental factor as a resource tax, it would hardly be doing its job properly. Even if this were not the case, the Secretary of State has the power to add, by regulations, further matters for consideration in the plan. I would expect this to be done, if necessary, by any regulations that were made instituting a resource tax. It is for those reasons that I ask tie noble Baroness whether she might consider withdrawing her amendments.
Baroness Nicol: I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. He raised some interesting arguments which I must confess I had not thought of. I wish to consider carefully what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 53, line 38, leave out ("where reasonably practicable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to remove the words "where reasonably practicable" from rage 53, line 38. If those words were not included, the subsection would state:
"In considering what information to include in the plan under subsection (3)(d) above, it shall be the duty of the authority to have regard to the desirability of giving priority to recycling waste".
I suggest that that is a reasonable requirement to make when asking an authority to use recycled waste. If one includes the words, "where reasonably practicable", one so weakens that requirement as to make it virtually useless. Any authority which did not have a desire to use recycled products or which decided for reasons of convenience that it did not want to use such products could wriggle out of the requirement. There are far too many opportunities for those who do not wish to be bothered by considerations of using recycled materials to ignore their usage. I suggest this is a perfectly reasonable requirement. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Amendment No. 215, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is another of those amendments which is driven by good intentions to encourage recycling. However, we remain convinced that the Bill as drafted is already sound. I shall explain briefly why. I appreciate that this is another of those cases where the Committee
1486
may feel the words in the Bill do not go far enough in imposing duties on authorities to recycle ever more waste. However, it must be right that there is some measure of flexibility in any such duty. The words under debate here, "where reasonably practicable", seem eminently sensible to us. We cannot impose a duty on authorities to consider recycling where it is impractical.
Perhaps I may say once again that we welcome the spirit in which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was intended; but I hope that he will agree with me that authorities should only give priority to recycling where it is practicable to do so. It is in no one's interests to have white elephant recycling schemes; they just undermine the serious recycling which we all want to see and which achieves results. I hope that that explanation will persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Addington: The answer which the noble Lord has given is one that I anticipated. Such phrases tend to so water down a provision that it becomes virtually meaningless. Saying "where reasonably practicable" is like saying that something will be done provided it is not too much trouble.
At this stage, I do not believe that it would be correct to press the amendment. There is a fine line between avoiding putting people to undue trouble and asking them to look at something at some time in the future. I believe that in this case the Government are on the wrong side of that line. However, at this point I am not prepared to press the matter, but I reserve the right to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved amendment No. 216:
Page 53, line 43, leave out ("whose area includes any of the relevant land") and insert ("any part of whose area is included in the area of the waste regulation authority").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 216, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 217. The amendments are both minor drafting amendments. The first makes a small improvement in clarity, and the second corrects an obvious error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 216A to 216C not moved.]
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 54, line 2, leave out ("disposal") and insert ("regulation").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 217A to 218C not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 55, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) It shall be the duty of the authority to revise the existing waste disposal plan for its area in accordance with the procedure and having regard to the criteria outlined in subsections (1) to (9) of this section.").
The noble Lord said: In accordance with Clause 48(4), which we have just considered in connection

1487
with the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Addington, waste regulation authorities have to prepare their waste disposal plans having regard:
"to the desirability, where reasonably practicable, of giving priority to recycling waste".
What is not clear is whether, before new waste disposal plans are prepared under this Bill, existing waste disposal plans will be updated. If such plans are updated under the terms of previous control of pollution legislation, they will presumably not be subject to the provisions of this Bill. If that is so, it would take some time before the proposal in regard to waste recycling is taken into account. The proposed amendment therefore would ensure that waste disposal authorities would have a duty to review existing plans explicitly in line with the new priority given to waste recycling. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 219 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord McNair, is one which we can support in principle but must reject in practice. The amendment seeks to impose a duty on regulation authorities to revise their disposal plans in accordance with the subsections (1) to (9) of Clause 48. We accept that any modification to the disposal plan should follow the procedure set out in this clause for the preparation of plans. Indeed that idea has always been incorporated in the Bill. Clause 48 is drafted in such a way that it refers to preparation or modification of plans at every stage. In this way the same procedure would be followed when an authority revises its plan as was followed when it was originally drafted. I trust that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel that he does not need to press his amendment.
Baroness Phillips: Can the noble Lord explain that in simple language? That would make a change! He said that the Government agreed in principle but did not like it in practice. Perhaps he would enlarge, because he did not give an answer. Two noble Lords who are very knowledgeable on these matters have put their names to the amendments. If it is the duty of the authority to revise existing waste disposal plans, surely that would not contradict anything that is already in the Bill. It would only strengthen it.
Lord Reay:The noble Baroness pulls me up for having said that we can support the amendment in principle but must reject it in practice. The point here is that Clause 48 as it now stands refers to the preparation and modification of plans, and that that procedure will be followed. The clause will apply to any modification of existing plans under the Control of Pollution Act.
Lord Ezra: In the light of that categoric statement that the provisions of the present Bill when passed will apply to any modifications of plans prepared under the previous control of pollution legislation, I am glad to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 219A and 219B not moved.]
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 219C not moved.]
Clause 49 [Functions of waste disposal authorities]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 219D:
Page 55, line 12, at end insert ("and for the disposal of waste so deposited").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 219D, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 221A, 221B, 221C, 221D and 221E.
This group of amendments in my name for the most part simply clarifies the provisions of Clause 49 of the Bill. However, the amendments also provide some important new provisions to widen the powers of disposal authorities. First, Amendment No. 219D makes it clear that disposal authorities have a duty to dispose of waste deposited at civic amenity sites. Secondly, as the Committee will be aware, the Bill provides that disposal authorities will transfer their existing assets to a LAWDC or make some alternative arrangement which satisfies my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Clause 49, as previously drafted, allowed authorities some scope to hold land to be used by contractors for the disposal of waste. If the Secretary of State approved, disposal authorities could grant the contractor a lease to cover the active life of the site. In this way authorities could retain the freehold on disposal sites which had a specific use for the authority after they had finished their active life, such as landfill sites that were to be used as parks or sports facilities.
Amendments Nos. 221A to 221E widen that power. Authorities will continue to be able to own land to be used by contractors as disposal sites as I have just outlined. In addition to that disposal, authorities will be empowered to own land, plant and equipment in certain other circumstances. I shall attempt to explain each of those circumstances in turn.
First, in relation to waste collected by collection authorities, disposal authorities will be able to own plant and equipment to be used to store the waste prior to its transportation, or to treat it so that it may be transported more easily. Amendment No. 221B is aimed at transfer stations. An authority would be able to own transfer station equipment, including skips in which waste is stored, and compacting equipment reduces the volume of waste to be transported. Disposal authorities will not operate the plant or equipment themselves. They will simply make it available to the contractors to use.
Secondly, Amendment No. 221E will allow disposal authorities similar powers in respect of their duty to provide civic amenity sites. Again they will be empowered to hold land to be used by contractors as civic amenity sites. Disposal authorities will also be able to provide plant and equipment to be used by contractors for storing waste delivered to civic amenity sites and also for treating such waste to make it easier to transport for disposal elswhere. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have some concern about this series of amendments which we have not had very much time to consider. In the first instance I should like to phrase my concerns as questions

1489
to the Minister. Am I right in thinking that this amendment provides that the waste disposal authorities have the power to hold land, plant, buildings and so on to deal with the deposit, transfer, treatment, disposal etc. of controlled waste and that they can divest themselves of the capital assets but may keep them for their own use? If I am right about that, where does that leave the waste disposal contractors?
It looks as though a waste disposal authority is unlikely to set up a waste disposal contractor if there is an alternative, which I understand these amendments provide, of holding the assets and letting them on contract to a waste disposal contractor. If the authority has that option and uses it, does that mean that the waste disposal contractors will be at a disadvantage compared with the private sector? In effect, they will be labour-only subcontractors and will have great difficulty if private sector contractors are willing to under-price a contract in order to get operational control of the facilities, such as transfer stations.
I am concerned about what that means for the relationship between the waste disposal authorities and the waste disposal contractors. I wonder why this series of amendments has come before Parliament at such a late stage with so little explanation of what has gone before.
Lord Hesketh: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, takes an interest on behalf of the contractors and believes it possible that the contractors might lose out. There may well be circumstances in which it is preferable from both the authorities' and the contractors' points of view for them to come to some arrangement, lease or rental agreement over certain essentially capital equipment. That is the object of the exercise. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no hidden scheme arriving at this point in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With respect, that does not answer my questions at all. I had very specific questions. Under what circumstances do the Government believe that a waste disposal authority will let the local authority waste disposal contractors (those are the ones about which I am concerned—the LAWDs) have control of its land? Why am I thinking that the natural tendency will be for the waste disposal authorities to keep control of the land and assets and simply let out a tender to labour-only subcontractors? I did not receive an answer to that question.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord may say that he did not receive an answer. I thought that I gave him a fairly specific answer to his question. I think that he is trying to over-complicate what is quite a sinple issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not pursue this exchange as a dialogue in which I do not receive any answers. This is a matter to which we may have to come back at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 55, line 21, leave out from ["Saturday") to end of line 22 and insert ("or Sunday of each week except Easter Day and a week in which the Saturday or Sunday is").
The noble Earl said: I refer to the part of subsection (2) which is in parenthesis,
"(including at least one period on the Saturday",
which then goes on,
"or following day"
To me the following day has always been Sunday. How long-winded can a parliamentary draftsman get? My amendment will alter the subsection to read:
"the Saturday or Sunday of each week except Easter Day and a week in which the Saturday or Sunday is 25th December or 1st January)".
That covers the main holidays of England. However, as the clause applies only to England, I may be on dangerous ground. Scotland recognised Christmas Day as an official holiday only in 1952. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: Amendment No. 221 attempts to exempt local authorities from the requirements that they open their civic amenity sites on Easter Sunday. Civic amenity sites should be available at places and times which encourage their use. Civic amenity sites form a crucial part of the recycling initiative because many local authorities co-locate their recycling facilities and their public disposal, facilities, and we must do all we can to promote them. Bank holiday weekends are often the time that people find most convenient to sort out their bulky waste and take it to the civic amenity site. It is clearly important that civic amenity sites should not be prevented from opening at such times. It is a sad fact of life that people, having sorted out their waste and taken it to the civic amenity site, may well fly-tip that waste if the site is not open when they visit it. That is a good reason for resisting any restriction on civic amenity site opening periods.
Furthermore, I should like to point out to my noble friend that there is no requirement that authorities must open their sites on Easter Day. Clause 49(2) of the Bill merely requires that civic amenity sites must be open on at least one Saturday or Sunday of each week except where Christmas and the New Year fall on a Saturday. That gives local authorities sufficient flexibility to avoid having to open their civic amenity sites on Easter Sunday, or any other Sunday, if they so wish. They will simply have to open their sites on the Saturday instead. Alternatively authorities may choose to open their sites on Saturdays and Sundays. Clearly such a decision would greatly reduce the potential for fly-tipping, but it is rightly a matter for the individual authorities themselves to decide.
We are convinced therefore that the clause as drafted gives local authorities sufficient discretion about when to open their civic amenity sites and that this amendment, though well intentioned, is not necessary.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he can deal with the question, so fairly put to him by my noble friend Lord Balfour, as to why the draftsman has used the words "or

1491
following day" instead of saying "Sunday". Sunday comes after Saturday. Why not say "Saturday or Sunday"?
That seems to me to be a perfectly fair point. The present wording adds a little piece of obscure gobbledegook to what otherwise would be a perfectly clear clause. Having said that, I entirely accept the point made by my noble friend about Easter Day.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for the explanation that I had from my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps he will look at this point between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 221A:
Page 55, line 35, after ("above") insert ("as respects controlled waste collected as mentioned in that paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 221B to 221E:
Page 55, line 37, leave out from ("which") to ("is") in line 38 and insert ("such waste").
Page 55, line 40, leave out from ("which") to end of line 41 and insert ("such waste may be treated or kept prior to its removal for treatment or disposal").
Page 55, line 42, leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
("(c) may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly own) plant and equipment for the purpose of enabling them to keep such waste prior to its removal for disposal or to treat such waste in connection with so keeping it or for the purpose of facilitating its transportation;
(cc) may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly hold) land for the purpose of enabling them to treat, keep or dispose of such waste in or on the land;").
Page 56, line 5, at end insert:
("(4A) For the purpose of discharging its duties under subsection (1)(b) above as respects household waste deposited as mentioned in that paragraph a waste disposal authority—

(a) may arrange for the provision, within or outside its area, by waste disposal contractors of places at which such waste may be treated or kept prior to its removal for treatment or disposal;

(b) may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly own) plant and equipment for the purpose of enabling them to keep such waste prior to its removal for disposal or to treat such waste in connection with so keeping it or for the purpose of facilitating its transportation; and

(c) may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly hold) land for the purpose of enabling them to treat, keep or dispose of such waste in or on the land.

(4B) Where the arrangements made under subsection (1)(b) include such arrangements as are authorised by subsection (3) above, subsection (4A) above applies as respects household or other controlled waste as it applies as respects household waste.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 221B to 221E en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 222 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 222ZA:
Page 56, leave out lines 6 to 27.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 222A. I sense
1492
unanimity on the need to ensure that, where practicable, waste is put to good use rather than consigned to landfill. To some extent straightforward commercial common sense means that with rising raw material costs, more materials are recycled within factory gates or are reclaimed at later stages. The provisions of Part II of the Bill, with their emphasis on raising landfill standards and hence costs, will of themselves give a further boost to recycling.
However, we need to go further. We should give a positive incentive to those local authorities and others who divert waste from landfill to recycling. In particular it is important to encourage waste collection authorities, which are the first port of call for waste after it leaves the consumer, to make arrangements to recycle as much as possible of the waste they handle before it leaves them to pass to waste disposal authorities. This is not to say that the waste disposal authority itself cannot arrange for waste to be recycled. In some cases that may be more appropriate. But, generally speaking, the waste collection authority will be the prime mover in recycling.
Turning to the specific amendments, government Amendment No. 222ZA would remove the existing permissive provisions. Government Amendment No. 222A provides in subsection (1) for recycling credits to be paid by waste disposal authorities to waste collection authorities. Those credits should represent the net saving of expenditure on the disposal of the waste.
Subsection (2) enables waste disposal authorities to pay such credits to bodies or individuals other than waste collection authorities, and subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State to turn that permissive power into a duty, specifying as necessary the types and quantities of waste in question. Subsection (4) puts a gloss on the term "net saving" and subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State a duty to make provision by regulation for the precise determination of the net saving.
I know that these provisions have a highly prescriptive ring to them. The reasoning behind that is as follows. At the moment few disposal authorities make credit or rebate payments to collection authorities who save them landfill costs. I pay tribute to those authorities like Lancashire County Council which have been doing that for some years. But the existing powers to pay rebates are little used. That is not surprising, since they are permissive. Thus the only incentive at present for waste collection authorities to recycle materials is the return they can get in the market as it stands. They get no credit for the economic and environmental savings brought about by saving on landfill. Using market mechanisms rather than subsidies, this amendment ensures that the benefits reach the parts that the current system does not reach.
We considered leaving it to waste disposal and collection authorities to agree on what the net savings might be. But we came to the conclusion that this could make for endless negotiation and confusion and large inequalities from area to area. I am the last one to favour administration by diktat, but in

1493
this case central government must take the responsibility for making sure that there is a clear and agreed methodology for assessing net savings. That is the purpose of subsection (5) of the new clause.
Thee Department of the Environment is about to commission detailed research into possible methodologies and we will be consulting widely both on the possible scope of regulations to be made on payments to third parties under subsection (3) and on the regulations to be made on determining net savings under subsection (5).
Subsections (6), (7) and (8) deal with reimbursement of the costs of disposing and delivering industrial and commercial waste and simply replace and clarify the provisions previously in subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 49 which in turn were carried over from the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
I am sorry to have dwelt on these amendments at length but we believe that their provisions underlie the whole trust of our recycling policy. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to echo the immortal words of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in his response to an earlier amendment. We welcome these amendments but have some doubts as to their practicality. In order not to provoke a comment from my noble friend Lady Phillips, I shall try to explain those doubts simply in words of one syllable.
Baroness Phillips: You will still get the comment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is right that there should be intervention and that the intervention should be as widespread as possible. The moves which the Government are now making to advance on the present permissive arrangements for local and waste disposal authorities are very welcome.
As I said, the problems are practical. What is the definition of the savings which are to be made? I give two examples of definitions in use at present. The West London waste disposal authority pays a subsidy of £8·26 per tonne on all sorts of recyclable waste that is, paper, glass, cans and so on. The figure is arrived at by calculating the cost per tonne of disposal of statutory waste in other ways, normally by landfill sites, estimating the amount saved and, therefore, basing the price per tonne on the average cost.
On the other hand, the Merseyside waste disposal authority pays a subsidy of £3·40 per tonne for glass and £3·90 per tonne for cans. I do not have the figures for other materials. However, it is calculated on the basis of marginal cost. It is calculated that the facilities, sites and labour must be provided in any event. Therefore, there is only the additional cost of the marginal tonne of material which would otherwise have to be disposed of. So, a lower figure is arrived at.
Which of those two methods are the Government tending towards? Whichever it is, how are we to secure that a subsidy, which might be £3 or £8 per
1494
tonne of material, will be well spent when, in the end, the material to be produced—for example, paper for recycling—is worth £1 per tonne?
The danger of that procedure as compared to the market-led procedure proposed in Amendment No. 210B is that we finish up subsidising the private paper and/or glass industry. I can see the arguments but the Government have not brought out those arguments. That was not part of the brief given for the amendments. I doubt whether the intention was that which I have described but I challenge the Government to show me that that will not be the effect.
Our further doubt is the possibility of fraud. We have heard about the paper stored in the garage of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the barn of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I am sure that they will not shift the paper from garage to barn and from barn to garage in order to twice gain a subsidy. However, what about scout hut A or church hall B where the materials are being collected? What assurances can be made that the subsidy will not be collected twice, as is the case with so much of the common agricultural policy. Subsidies are collected several times for agricultural materials which are moved in or out of different countries or territorial waters. We need more assurances that the scheme has been carefully thought out before we can accept that, however admirable it may be in principle, it will work in practice.
Lord Hesketh: It was interesting that the noble Lord said that we should end up paying subsidies. When replying to the noble Lord's earlier amendment I referred not to the market but to the command economy, as I saw it. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the word "subsidy". Whatever financial return or benefit accrues, it accrues within the waste itself. It is not, as in the amendment of the noble Lord, extra cash coming in from outside in order to try to rig the market. It is an internal transaction and keeps within the policy of the loop which I outlined earlier to the Committee of trying to create improvement and achievement within the system rather than that coming in from outside.
The noble Lord referred to recycling and tried to link with that the aspersions which he cast on the Common Market. I have discovered many aspects about the Bill since I first looked at it a considerable time ago. However, the relationship between recycling and butter mountains moving inexorably between various Mediterranean resorts is going a little further than I would have expected of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—
Noble Lords: No, no.
Lord Hesketh: I do not disagree with the noble Lord in saying that whatever system one tries to employ in order to encourage recycling will have difficulties. I should be the first to admit that there will always be difficulties when we try to achieve what we set out to do.
As regards the system of recycling credits, the Government propose to go out with their research and consult widely. The points raised by the noble

1495
Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the definitions taken by various authorities with regard to waste are important because we must set the system in the middle. After consultation we shall go to regulation.
The purpose of our system is not to affect the market but to encourage the result. That is unlike the system proposed in the previous amendment; it was to affect the market by putting money into it. We are trying to achieve the same net result but by two different methods.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that the Minister is playing with words. It is a question of what is a good word and what is a bad word? What I call a "subsidy" he says is all right because it is only a credit. When I say that something is market led he describes it as being the command economy. However, he goes on to describe his amendments as being prescriptive, which appears to be the same as issuing commands. If I am wrong about my interpretation of those words I stand to be corrected.
The noble Lord accused me of being unfair about the Common Agricultural Policy. I was not as stern as the Prime Minister has been on occasions, or as many Members of the Committee have been, about the well-known abuse. The noble Lord would not call it a "subsidy" system but the Common Agricultural Policy consists of a series of credits which the Government are recommending. Those credits are being widely abused and I fear that the present provisions are also at risk of wide abuse.
The detailed defects of the amendments are clear and have not been effectively gainsaid. However, ultimately the only way in which one can have any effect on the market is to provide effective support for the consumption of recycled materials. Our amendment provided for that; these amendments fail to do so.
Baroness Phillips: Amendment No. 211D reads:
"may make available to waste disposal contractors (and accordingly own) plant and equipment".
If that provision is so important, it is strange that, the Bill having passed through the other place and reached this Committee, the Government suddenly find it necessary to insert it. Surely it relates to a question of policy. One wonders how much research goes into the preparation of some of the legislation that we debate, of which the Bill is a clear example. Such provisions are points of policy. Where have they been until now? That is the only caveat that I should enter because an example occurs in almost every Bill. I have been a Member for a long time and I believe that in Committee we should not have to consider so many policy amendments. They should have been written into the Bill or dealt with earlier.
As regards the EC, I heard an interesting conversation here, although not in the Chamber. A farmer was saying that he drove his cows over a border to collect one subsidy and then drove them back again to collect another. I do not believe that we can escape the fact that, as usual, people have become wise to that possibility.
Lord Ross of Newport: I wish to place on record the fact that, in tabling the amendments, the Government are carrying out a promise made in another place and that therefore we welcome them. My only criticisms are that the arrangements may be difficult to work in practice and that the payments for third parties will be discretionary. That may be one of the less attractive aspects of what has been put before us. However, we on these Benches as well as the outside waste authorities will welcome the Government's action in this respect.
Lord St. John of Bletso: I too support Amendment No. 222A, which seeks to enhance the recycling powers of the Bill. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will be keen to ensure that the emerging recycling capabilities of the private sector have at least as good an opportunity to compete in the tendering processes as do the less environmentally friendly disposal techniques such as tipping. Currently that is funded entirely from the public purse.
Following the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I ask the Minister to define the Government's meaning of the word "net" which appears in subsection (4) of the amendment. Does it mean that local authorities will not be permitted to disguise the costs of disposal that were traditionally met by other budgets when competing in the tendering process with those in the private sector, who must include all their costs?
Can the Minister assure the Committee that before the regulations specified in subsection (5) are made there will have been full consultation with representatives not only of local authorities but also of private organisations and that the emphasis will be on the need to encourage recycling?
Lord Parry: The Minister's faith in the market-led economy and its mechanics is understandable coming from his side of the House. Does he agree that the collection and recycling of glass has been made more difficult because in Wales no plant can deal with the recycling of glass? Therefore, the value of the glass to the authorities which are collecting it falls below the cost of that collection as the market-led economy rises and falls.
The Duke of Somerset: I wish to intervene because this is an important clause and it is similar to the one which I shall be moving later. It allows a financial incentive for those who seek to divert waste from landfill in favour of recycling and reclamation. It is important to ensure that any schemes competing or applying for financial credits can do so on equal basis.
The Minister has referred to the regulations which will govern the administration of the part of the Bill. However, I hope that he can confirm that the consultation process which will precede these regulations will include the opportunity for all those with skills in the field of recycling to participate. It is hoped that such consultations will include the views of private recycling firms which have an ability to advise on the most cost-effective and efficient ways of establishing a recycling infrastructure.

1497
Can the Minister tell the Committee when the regulations will be in place? Will the consultations and subsequent regulations ensure that source separation and mechanised separation are able to complete on the same basis? Can he confirm that, when the provisions in the amendment are in force, one will not have an advantage over the other? It is hoped that the new amendment and its subsequent regulations will make the option of landfall financially less attractive in order to avoid the inherent environmental problems which we have heard about, such as methane.
Lord Hesketh: I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that he was right in saying that the amendment fulfils a promise made in another place. It is a comparatively modest amendment compared with those that I have seen tabled on occasions by Members on the other side of the Committee in an attempt to change the course of various Bills.
The noble Lord, Lord Parry, mentioned the market. I must refer him to the earlier remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when introducing his amendment. He extolled the market as being one of the attractive features of his amendment. Concerning crushing facilities in Wales, I do not have the necessary information to hand, but I shall communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Parry, later.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred to consultation. I said earlier that consultation will be on the very widest basis. I hope that covers the points made. The regulations will be appearing within 12 months. In answer to the noble Duke's question, separation will be part of the calculation. One of the objects of this Bill is to reduce landfill as a principle, not only through method but through other means.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 222A:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
("Payments for recycling and disposal etc. of waste

.—(1) Where, under section 46(2) above, a waste collection authority retains for recycling waste collected by it under section 43 above, the waste disposal authority for the area which includes the area of the waste collection authority shall make to that authority payments, in respect of the waste so retained, of such amount representing its net saving of expenditure on the disposal of the waste as the authority determines.

(2) Where a person other than a waste collection authority, for the purpose of recycling it, collects waste arising in the area of a waste disposal authority which would fall to be collected under section 43 above, the waste disposal authority may make to that person payments, in respect of the waste so collected, of such amounts representing its net saving of expenditure on the disposal of the waste as the authority determines.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, impose on waste disposal authorities a duty to make payments corresponding to the payments which are authorised by subsection (2) above to such persons in such circumstances and in respect of such descriptions or quantities of waste as are specified in the regulations.

(4) For the purposes of subsections (1), (2) and (3) above the net saving of expenditure of a waste disposal authority on the disposal of any waste retained or collected for recycling is the
1498
amount of the expenditure which the authority would, but for the retention or collection, have incurred in having it disposed of less any amount payable by the authority to any person in consequence of the retention or collection for recycling (instead of the disposal) of the waste.

(5) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, make provision for the determination of the net saving of expenditure for the purposes of subsections (1), (2) and (3) above; and any question arising shall, at the request of the authority or person concerned, be referred to him for determination.

(6) A waste disposal authority shall be entitled to receive from a waste collection authority such sums as are needed to reimburse the waste disposal authority the reasonable cost of making arrangements under section 49(1) above for the disposal of commercial and industrial waste collected in the area of the waste disposal authority.

(7) A waste disposal authority shall pay to a waste collection authority a reasonable contribution towards expenditure reasonably incurred by the waste collection authority in delivering waste, in pursuance of a direction under section 49(4)(a) above, to a place which is unreasonably far from the waste collection authority's area.

(8) Any question arising under subsection (6) or (7) above shall, in default of agreement between the two authorities in question, be determined by arbitration.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duties of authorities as respects disposal of waste collected: Scotland]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 57, line 11, after ("43(5)") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 50 applies only to Scotland. Page 47 of the Bill, subsection (11), states that subsection (5)(b) shall not apply to Scotland. I therefore beg to move this amendment, which I think is a necessary one.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: This amendment is a purely technical drafting amendment, which I am quite happy to accept.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Special provisions for land occupied by disposal authorities: Scotland]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 57, line 34, after first ("waste") insert ("in or").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 223A and 223B together. The wording should read "in or on land". These words are consequential upon similar amendments which were discussed and were inserted into the Bill last Thursday. I beg to move.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I am happy to accept these drafting amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 223B:
Page 57, line 37, at the beginning insert ("in or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 57, line 44, after ("regulations") insert ("made by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This amendment effects a minor clarifying change in the drafting. Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 indicate small changes consequential on amendments agreed to at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 58, line 5, leave out ("severe") and insert ("serious").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 225A:
Page 58, line 20, at end insert:
("(ii) the Health and Safety Executive").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 58, line 28, leave out ("water") and insert ("waste").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 226 corrects what must have been a printing error in the original production of the Bill. We do not have water disposal authorities.
I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 227 and subsequent amendments. Although there is no difference in the meaning of "in pursuance of" Section x and "under" Section x, let us at least have the same expression used throughout the whole clause. I have always believed that if one word will do, that is all that should appear in Scottish legislation. This has been confirmed by a group of similar amendments which were moved by my honourable friend Mr. Trippier during the Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I have no quarrel with any of these amendments and am quite happy to accept them in their entirety.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 226A:
Page 58, line 30, leave out from ("which") to end of line 35 and insert ("the river purification authority, the Health and Safety Executive or the general planning authority makes to it during the allowed period;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendments Nos. 227 and 232:
Page 59, line 6, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 9, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 14, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 19, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 21, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 25, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
The noble Earl said: These amendments are all concerned with similar wording, and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 232A:
Page 59, line 29, after second ("authority") insert ("or the Health and Safety Executive").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendments Nos. 233 to 235:
Page 59, line 33, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 59, line 46, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 60, line 3, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
The noble Earl said: In rising to move Amendments No. 233 to 235 en bloc, I should like to record my thanks for the letters and discussions that I have had with my noble friend Lord Sanderson concerning the many questions that I have raised on this Bill. This clause seems to me a good example of where we have much improved the wording. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 236, 236A, 236B and 236C:
Page 60, line 7, leave out subsection (12).
Page 60, line 11, after ("authority") insert (", the Health and Safety Executive").
Page 60, line 14, leave out ("the authority") and insert ("that body").
Page 60, line 15, leave out ("the other authority") and insert ("that body").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 236 and, with it, Nos. 236A to 236C en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Powers for recycling waste: Scotland]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 61, line 16, leave out ("used again") and insert ("recycled").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendments No. 237, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 238 and 239. These are drafting amendments consequential on the insertion into the Bill in another place of Clause 29(6), which gives a broad meaning to the term "recycling". Thus we have been able to simplify the drafting of Clause 53 using the term "recycled" instead of the other expressions. I hope that these drafting changes will need with the approval of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as he raised these points in correspondence with my noble friend Lord Sanderson. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 238 and 239:
Page 61, leave out lines 17 and 18.
Page 61, line 21, leave out from ("being") to end of line 22 and insert ("recycled").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
The Duke of Somerset The Duke of Somerset moved Amendment No. 240:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Incentive for recycling waste Payment by waste disposal authority to waste collection authority
Where a waste collection authority establishes for its area, or any part of it, a system of waste storage and collection which enables householders in that area to separate domestic waste so that all or part of that waste is separately contained or stored prior to collection by the collection authority or its agent or contractor, and that waste is thereafter recycled by the local authority or its agent or contractor, the waste disposal authority for that area shall pay to the collection authority a sum equal to the real avoided landfill cost which the waste disposal authority would otherwise have incurred in receiving and disposing of that waste either in its own disposal facilities or those of its contractor.").
The noble Duke said: In moving Amendment No. 240, should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 241, 242, 243 and 244.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have added their names in support of these amendments as they come from many sides of the Committee. I am also happy to see that the Government have tabled their own amendment after Clause 49 which is similar in principle to this amendment. Many of my points were debated during our discussions on that amendment. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that they will be similar in practice.
It is important to ensure that any new system of financial credits does not favour or disciminate against one means of recycling as against another. Financial credits should be available to the method or organisation that can most effectively recycle the greatest volume of domestic waste. The private sector must play an important role in the establishment of a recycling industry. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me when I say that a market-led solution is essential when addressing the ever-increasing problem and the ever-increasing volumes of domestic waste.
If the Government wish to see 50 per cent of domestic waste recycled by the year 2000, they will need more than the statute book as an incentive. When one realises that we currently recycle only 5 per cent. of household refuse, it is clear that we are racing against time to reach that laudable target.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government will not rely on source separation of domestic refuse in isolation to reach their target. Although source separation is useful and should be assisted on performance by financial credits, so should other means of recycling and reclamation. Presently about half of household waste is recyclable by traditional means of source separation and mechanical and physical methods. If the 50 per cent. government target is achieved, a great amount would therefore still go to landfill. That would mostly
1502
include the organic components which generate methane and thus contribute to the greenhouse effect. Methane is a great deal more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that Birmingham City Council already operates, in joint venture with the private sector, a recycling and reclamation initiative which does not rely on any kind of source separation. I gather that it now claims to be in a position to reclaim 92 per cent. of the waste stream that goes through the plant.
Local authorities like Birmingham should be encouraged to seek partners in industry who are able to help them tackle those problems. Such ventures must be part of an overall strategy that helps to reduce the volume of waste that we consign to the ground by processing it into a form which is useful and which eases the burden on natural resources such as fossil fuel and peat.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that financial credits will be available to all sensible organisations, whether in the private sector, the public sector or a combination of the two, and that the administration of those credits will operate on the simple criterion of volume diverted from landfill. In landfill sites methane can still be produced for 30-odd years and after completion needs careful monitoring.
Both my amendment and that of the Minister refer to the need for regulation in the administration of this part of the Bill, especially in relation to the determination of the saving that has occurred in financial terms by diverting certain volumes of waste from landfill. On that point, I should like to quote the Secretary of State for the Environment, who made an excellent speech on recycling on 25th March. We heard parts of it last week. He said:
"Through the Environmental Protection Bill, we will be able to see for the first time the real measure of landfill costs and the benefits of recycling. This is not just in terms of some narrow financial balance sheet but taking into account the range of environmental and economic costs and benefits".
I ask the Minister to confirm that the regulations to which he refers in his new clause will reflect the equation on the value of avoiding landfilling and diverting waste so clearly put by the Secretary of State in his speech three months ago.
Perhaps the Minister will consider the point further and reflect on what the Secretary of State went on to say in that same speech. He described the way in which the Americans assess the value of litter. He said:
"Some American States have litter assessment levies on different materials according to their potential to create litter, with the proceeds put into litter control and recycling".
I wonder whether the Minister will look at those sentiments of his right honourable friend, extend them slightly and look at the possibility of making "potential for nuisance" a factor when deciding the amount of value that should be attracted towards the removal of certain kinds of waste from landfill when financial credits are calculated. That is an important point which should be addressed when setting regulations.
If one successfully removes all the paper and glass content, one is left with a higher percentage of

1503
landfill content that is of a putrescible nature, such as vegetable matter. If financial credits on a sliding scale encourage the recycling of that content into such products as refuse-derived compost, then the financial credits system will be working well and will encourage an industry-led solution to the problems of recycling. That must be good news for those already concerned by the mounting burdens on the public purse.
In conclusion, and following on directly from that point, perhaps the Minister will give one final and important commitment. I hope that he will be able to assure all noble Lords who have an interest in this matter that he will include as many people as possible when it comes to the consultation process that will precede the regulations that he outlines in his new clause. Naturally, that should include industry, which is already involved in recycling. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McNair: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, which also bears my name.
We have set ourselves just one decade in which to recycle 50 per cent. of household waste. We start from a very poor 5 per cent. today. If we are to get anywhere near that figure, we need to encourage all those engaged in recycling. We need to let the recycling industry compete on equal terms in the hope that its combined efforts will help us to reach the Prime Minister's laudable target by the year 2000.
I understand that the Government initially looked at a system of financial credits in order to finance source separation. It now appears that the Minister is happy to allow that facility to be extended to those who can demonstrate a recycling capability. That is welcome news, expecially to those of us who believe that source separation alone will not achieve that 50 per cent. target and, more importantly, will be vastly expensive to implement and maintain.
I should like to conclude by pressing the Minister for an assurance that full consultation will take place before regulations are set effecting the implementation of the relevant clause in the Act and that those consultations will include private sector companies which are already involved in pioneering recycling technology for domestic waste.
Lord Renton: The noble Duke and those who support him deserve credit for putting forward this concept. The idea of incentives for solving the waste problem is a good one. However, there is one matter that arises from the amendments which requires explanation. The savings to be achieved—that is to say, in the words of the amendment:
"a sum equal to the real avoided landfill cost which the waste disposal authority would otherwise have incurred"—
are necessarily in every case a hypothetical amount.
We need to consider how that amount would be estimated. One way would be to decide what area of land the landfill would take up and what would be the value of that land. It may very often be an old brickfield being filled in, or something of that kind.
1504
Another way of measuring might be by deciding the weight of the waste to be put into the landfill site. Another way would be to decide by the volume, by measuring the number of cubic metres.
We must realise that, as a matter of practicality, the cost savings must be considered and worked out. I hesitate to criticise the amendments because in principle they are aiming at something worth considering. However, when we examine how they will work we must look a little deeper. We must consider in particular how the hypothetical sum is to be calculated.
Lord McNair: Perhaps I can enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I believe that the costs are calculated on a volume not a weight basis. It is the amount of space that the waste takes up that decides for how long the landfill site can be used. Future amendments deal with that subject in more detail, but I understand that there are three types of cost which should be taken into account when one is looking at the avoided landfill cost.
One is the gate fee or tipping cost; another is the monitoring cost, which is a long-term cost; and there is also the maintenance cost. It is difficult to attribute a specific tonne cost to each lorry load that is tipped. The monitoring and maintenance costs relate to tipping which occurred in the past. However, I hope to be in a position to enlighten the Committee when we consider further amendments.
Lord Hylton: It is clear that the practice of landfill tipping is likely to continue for many years, with the best will and incentives. It is also obvious that there are many completed sites quietly decaying.
When the Minister replies, it would be helpful and enlightening if he would say something regarding the progress made in collecting and using the methane generated from the sites. Perhaps he would also say whether greater improvements are likely in the next few years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is obvious from debates on previous amendments that we are sympathetic to the ideas behind this amendment. We believe it shows a considerable degree of ingenuity in the design of financial incentives. I do not wish to criticise the detail of the wording, especially as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, to a considerable extent answered the criticisms already made.
However, I believe the amendment raises a question which I brought up on earlier amendment regarding the basis of the subsidies or credits. The Minister did not respond when I gave the example that some local authorities were using avarage costs and some were using marginal costs. He did not say which was his preferred basis of calculation.
The same difficulties arise with the "real avoided landfill cost", which is the basis of these amendments. The calculation could become extremely complicated. A reference to methane has already been made. That could be a cost or it could be a benefit if the methane is used. The reinstatement of the landfill site in due course could be a benefit later, but that could be many years way and the

1505
calculation of the cost could be complicated. We must have better answers from the Government than we have had so far to this kind of amendment.
Lord Parry: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask whether or not there are already sufficient data available to show the costs incurred over the years by local authorities in the acquisition of hollows and wasteland for the creation of infill tipping. Is not the cost per tonne also included in the records of the various authorities? Far from being a hypothetical issue, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it is a practical one for which all records are kept.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 240 to 243, standing in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord St. John of Bletso, and my noble friend, Lord Sudeley, seek to establish precisely the sort of recycling credits scheme about which I spoke—at some length—a little earlier. We are at one in the desire to see a clearly understood methodology for establishing the cost savings made by avoiding landfill in favour of recycling.
We also agree that the economic benefit of recycling should if possible be passed on to whoever is responsible for recycling, be they in the public or private sector. We are, for example, very aware of the efforts made by companies in the private sector, such as Secondary Resources plc, to devise systems which maximise the recycling of waste.
Amendment No. 244 refers to a rather different issue. It seeks to exempt authorities from the competitive tendering requirements where they propose to make arrangements with a contractor for recycling. Again, I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment, which aims to encourage as much recycling as possible. But authorities will be able to take environmental considerations into account in assessing tenders, and it is surely both healthy and potentially beneficial for recycling that authorities should not be locked into existing disposal methods and that the private sector should be encouraged to come up with innovative methods of recycling.
Both noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment they had tabled referred to what they saw as the limitations of source separation. I should make it clear, as I did at the end of speaking to my own amendment a short while ago, that credits will be available to all sensible organisations, be they in the public or the private sector. The main points made particularly by the noble Duke referred to his concern at the level of consultation. I can only reaffirm that we believe consultation should be on the very broadest basis.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made an interesting interjection into the debate. He said that I had not answered his question regarding the different forms of costs. If we are to consult, there is not much point in having a closed mind before consulting. The purpose then is rather lost, if I may say so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government must have some mind, whether closed or open.
Lord Hesketh: It has a broad mind, which is why we are waiting to know the views of those who have something to contribute to the debate.
Lord Renton: May I suggest that the Government may need an open mind?
Lord Hesketh: I am once again grateful for an intervention of my noble friend Lord Renton. In many ways there are similarities between this amendment and the amendment I moved earlier. I shall look forward with interest to the finer and more technical amendments that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, foreshadowed in his remarks.
The Duke of Somerset: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. On the basis of the Government's new amendment tabled subsequent to mine and of his explanation, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage in order to examine what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241 and 244 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 244A:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
("Matters relating to approved recyclers

.—(1) In preparing a plan under section 47(1) above of the arrangements appropriate in its area for the recyling of waste, a waste collection authority shall have regard to the existence of approved recyclers capable of serving the locality.

(2) In preparing a plan under section 48(1) and 48(7) above of the arrangements appropriate in its area, a waste regulation authority shall have regard to the existence of approved recyclers capable of serving the locality.

(3) An approved recycler shall be entitled to treat, keep or dispose of waste without having applied for a waste management licence provided that the material that it is keeping or treating shall be non-contaminated material capable of, and wholly or primarily intended for, reuse.

(4) The waste regulation authority shall authorise by approved recyclers' licence the treatment, keeping or disposing of waste without a waste management licence.

(5) The Secretary of State, may by regulation, make provision as to the conditions upon which an approved recyclers' licence is, or is not to be, granted by approved recyclers.

(6) The Secretary of State may, as respects any approved recyclers licence for which an application is made to a waste regulation authority, give to the authority directions as to the terms and conditions which are, or are not, to be included in the licence: and it shall be the duty of the authority to give effect to the direction.

(7) It shall be the duty of waste regulation authorities to have regard to any guidance issued to them by the Secretary of State on the discharge of their function in relation to approved recyclers.

(8) For the purposes of this section an "approved recycler" shall be a person or undertaking wholly or primarily involved in the keeping or treating, or disposing of non-contaminated waste capable of and intended for reuse, or who is carrying out such approved processes of recycling as the Secretary of State may by regulation determine.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 244A deals with another aspect of the facilitation and stimulation of recycling. It is intended to apply to those involved in the recycling of non-contaminating material. The proposed new clause results from work being done by the British Secondary Metals Association, which acts on behalf of companies

1507
involved in the recycling of non-ferrous metal. As president of the UK Reclamation Council, I believe that the clause might have application to a wide range of recycling activity that might otherwise end up by being over-regulated in the Bill.
It is relevant to draw the attention of the Committee to the preamble to the EC draft directive on the transit of waste. It is stated in the 14th recital that less stringent rules may be applied to waste which is to be further used. It also states that non-contaminated waste intended for further use should be excluded from controls on transit.
The Committee had the opportunity to debate some of these principles in relation to the recycling of secondary metals in connection with Amendment No. 154 to Clause 32 which was ably moved by my noble friend Lord Ross of Newport. Since then the Committee has had occasion to debate important and welcome clauses to the Bill which seek to encourage recycling.
The purpose of the proposed new clause is that firms whose work is wholly or primarily recycling, which do not handle contaminated material and which achieve certain minimum standards laid down by regulation for the conduct of specified recycling processes should be awarded a licence as an approved recycler. Such recyclers would be open to future inspection to ensure that they were not undertaking activity outside the approved categories and that they were maintaining due standards.
However, beyond that they would be freed from the supervision otherwise envisaged for waste management. The procedures would be simple and the criteria clear. My amendment suggests that regulation authorities should be guided by regulations and guidelines produced by the Secretary of State. Such guidelines can be drawn up after discussion with the appropriate representatives of recycling bodies such as the BSMA previously referred to, the BSF and other members of the UK Reclamation Council.
I believe that the status of approved recycler is one that would be eagerly sought. It would ensure support from the public and would protect the recycling industry from unnecessary regulation. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the positive advantage of a proposal that I believe will carry wide support in the recycling industries. I ask the Minister to consider this provision seriously and to let me have his views. This is by way of being a probing amendment. The suggestion is one that could help to achieve the recycling objectives which are fully covered in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be sympathetically considered. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course we are sympathetic to the idea brought forward by the British Secondary Metals Association that there should be an exemption from the onerous obligations of regulations which necessarily apply to large numbers of categories of controlled waste. Before saying that we can support this amendment I would have to be sure that it does not go further than the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, intends. With this
1508
amendment he is creating a new category of people called approved recyclers. They would have the right to treat, keep or dispose of waste without having to apply for a waste management licence.
Clearly in the case of non-ferrous metal, to which I am sure the noble Lord is referring, there should not be any difficulty. The problem is that the amendment does not specify what materials are being referred to. It may well be that the boundary between contaminated and non-contaminated material, as provided for in the proposed subsection (3), is not as clear as the amendment intends. What will happen if the material for recycling is contaminated? What will happen if it can cause contamination? That is particularly important with metal substances that are not contaminated themselves but which can be the cause of contamination.
The problem is that almost any waste can contaminate or damage the environment. The degree of contamination depends not only on the material but on its reaction on surrounding materials and sometimes on its quantity. I am sorry to appear to be so unwelcoming to a provision that is basically good. The danger with this amendment is that it could be a way round the control of contaminated material. Unless we know clearly who checks whether a material is contaminated and who pays for the checks, the Government should be wary to some extent of this amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I have the utmost respect for the valuable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to recycling policy as chairman of the UK Reclamation Council. When he enters a special plea on behalf of the recycling industry we do well to listen. We sometimes hear special pleadings that seem to be suggesting that any industry engaged in reclamation and any material destined for recycling are inherently a good thing and should therefore be exempted from every control or regulation known to man. The noble Lord is far too experienced and knowledgeable to fall into such exaggeration. This proposed new clause is moderate and reasonable in its demands. Indeed, it is so reasonable that I hope to be able to demonstrate to the noble Lord that all its essential points are already met in the Bill as it stands.
The noble Lord's scheme would exempt specified waste recycling processes from waste management licensing. Instead recyclers approved by a waste regulation would be issued with approved recycler's licences. Such licences could be issued subject to conditions: the Secretary of State could direct an authority as to licence conditions and the authority would have to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State.
That has a familiar ring to it. The noble Lord's proposed licences for recyclers would be little different from waste management licences. I am afraid I do not see the point of exempting recycling from one system and replacing it with another system. Surely that would not ease the burden. A waste management licence may also be issued subject to conditions and the Secretary of State has power to set such conditions for licences in general or for

1509
classes of licences. The main difference in the noble Lord's system is that there is no provision that failing to abide by a licence is an offence. I assume this is an inadvertent omission. Without some sort of criminal sanction in reserve, a licensing system would be of little use. In fact I do not see anywhere in this new clause a provision for recyclers to have regard to pollution of the environment or harm to human health.
I can assure the noble Lord that everything his proposed system is designed to achieve can be done within the Bill as it stands. The licensing system is designed to cover activities like recycling as well as simple disposal. That is why we have changed the name from "waste disposal licences" in the 1974 Act to "waste management licences" in this Bill. There is plenty of provision for flexibility. The conditions attached to a licence should be wide or narrow, tight or loose, according to the dangers posed by the activity being licensed. That is the key criterion. Of course we must bear in mind the ultimate good of recycling, but we must have overriding regard to whether the materials and processes involved are threatening to people or the environment. The process of recycling a toxic material can be as dangerous as the process of disposal and as much in need of control.
Under the waste management licensing system there are provisions in the Bill for the authority to vary licences and to revoke or suspend them if it feels that the activities of the licence are causing pollution of the environment or harm to human health. Without this kind of back-up for a licensing system, an authority would be powerless to act on the occasions where the recycler suddenly started to cause problems or risked the health of humans.
I turn to the finer details of the amendment. I am afraid that I cannot see that the system would be workable. For a start, how would a recycler become an approved recycler if the authority had no powers to refuse a licence? If the authority imposed conditions in the recycler's licence, how would the licensee protect himself against overburdensome conditions? There is no right of appeal in this clause. Another point is that of inspection. Under the waste mangagement system an authority has to check the conditions in a licence and see that they are being complied with. There is no provision in the clause for such an inspection.
I hold no brief for regulation for the sake of it. If the Government were convinced that a particular class of activity required only minimal conditions, there is provision for the Secretary of State to direct that only certain conditions should be set in such licences. This can be seen in Clause 34 of the Bill which sets out the waste management system. If we were convinced that some processes were so innocuous as to need no licensing at all, there is provision for complete exemption. Indeed we have already used this power to exempt from licensing the processing of waste paper.
The new clause would require authorities to have regard to the existence of recyclers in drawing up their waste disposal and recycling plans. I have to say that it would be a strange plan that did not do so. My department will be issuing guidance on the
1510
content of plans, and an assessment of the capacity and location of recycling will certainly be a factor which plans should embrace.
The Government fully share the noble Lord's aims of promoting the recycling industry and eliminating unnecessary burdens. I hope he will accept that the legal framework for doing so is already in the Bill.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Lord for his consideration of the proposal and for his emphasis on two points which I think are most important. The first is that the way in which waste management licences are intended to be applied will be flexible and will take full account of the activities of the licensee. It follows that, if the licensee is largely recycling valuable materials to make them even more valuable, the conditions of the licence will reflect that activity. I take it that that is what he meant.
Secondly, I am pleased to note that the intention would certainly not be to apply onerous conditions where those were unnecessary. I should like to study carefully what the noble Lord said. I recall that when my noble friend Lord Ross moved an earlier amendment the noble Lord agreed that there could be contact between the trade associations concerned and the Minister to discuss these matters further. In the light of that assurance and in the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Power of Secretary of State to require waste to be accepted, treated, disposed of or delivered]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 62, line 6, at end insert:
("(9) The Secretary of State shall consult the waste regulation authority before exercising any of his powers contained or referred to in this section.").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady David. Clause 54 concerns enforcement. Having dealt in Clauses 34 to 42 with the revision of the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 we now come to the replacement in the Bill of Section 17(3)(a) of the 1974 Act. Quite properly Clause 54 provides for sanctions against those who hold waste and fail to deliver it to a specified person—in other words, to deliver it for treatment in a proper way—and also against the waste regulatory authorities who are required to accept certain kinds of controlled waste when it is offered to them.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is right that there should be enforcement in this clause and in Clause 55 for Scotland. What puzzles me about the clause as drafted—and this explains why my noble friend wished to move the amendment to add the requirement for consultation with the waste regulation authority—is that in some respects it gives the Secrtary of State greater powers than the waste regulation authority.
Waste regulation authorities are on the ground. They know better than Secretaries of State the waste being produced in their areas that needs to be disposed of. We are not suggesting that there should

1511
not be this long stop provision. But we believe that as waste regulation authorities are being given considerable powers they should at least be consulted before their own rulings and their own enforcement provisions are overruled in turn by the powers given in Clause 54 to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: Under Clause 54 the Secretary of State has a power to give directions in respect of the management of waste. This is an extension of powers contained in the Control of Pollution Act for special waste to cover all controlled waste. It is very much a reserve power for use when the normal negotiating arrangements for the disposal of waste have broken down.
It is not the Secretary of State's intention to become involved in the day to day management of waste. These arrangements are normally very satisfactorily made between the producer of the waste and his chosen contractor. However, there have been isolated incidents where it has appeared that genuine difficulties may arise in finding a contractor to take the waste in question or where the holder of the waste is disinclined to make any arrangements for it. Either event may prevent waste being disposed of, which is obviously an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
It is in such circumstances that the Secretary of State would intervene. It is not envisaged that this power would be used frequently if indeed at all. Such circumstances would be the result of a breakdown in relationships, and during the course of negotiations with the parties concerned the Secretary of State would take the advice of the waste regulation authority and HMIP.
I can therefore assure the noble Lord that if this power needs to be invoked it will be as a last resort when attempts to secure agreement between the parties have failed. In the course of such attempts the waste regulation authorities would have been consulted. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by my explanation and will feel that he need not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not certain that I am reassured. We understood that it was to be a last resort provision. That was never in question. I find it difficult to understand why, as we have the Government's assurance that the waste regulation authorities will be consulted, they cannot accept the amendment. After all it will not be a terrible burden on the Secretary of State as he will use these powers very infrequently. In this case the Government could have shown a little generosity and flexibility. The amendment cannot do any harm and it adds to the clarity of the Bill by introducing those provisions which the Government have made clear they intend.
However, I have no doubt that my noble friend will want to think about the response to her amendment. In order that she can do so, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Powers to require removal of waste unlawfully deposited]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 62, line 11, after ("deposited") insert ("in or").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 246 seeks to add clarity to the clause. The clause gives the regulation authority or the collection authority power to serve a notice on the occupier of land to remove waste unlawfully deposited on any land. This amendment adds the power to require the removal of waste which is in land.
Perhaps I may refer back to the debate on Clause 34 when my noble friend tabled amendments to include areas below ground. I take this chance once again to reassure noble Lords that waste in or on land, above or below ground, will be covered by this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, does that much more quickly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 246A:
Page 62, line 14, leave out ("occupier") and insert ("person who deposited or caused or knowingly permitted the waste to be deposited").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to broaden Clause 56(1) to cover an area which has been causing tremendous problems for some time to local authorities. I understand that the contents of the clause are copied directly from Section 16 of the Control of Pollution Act. Unfortunately, it does not seem to address the difficulties which local authorities have to face. It applies only to occupiers who have deposited waste on their own land.
The object of this amendment and of Amendment No. 246B which follows on to tidy up a modification in the light of the first amendment is to deal with the much bigger problem of the unlawful deposit of waste by third parties. It is a problem which most local authorities have been seeking to address and one which this clause as it stands at present does not cover. The amendment would broaden the scope of the clause to cover such undesirable actions. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In my view the word "occupier" should not be removed. However, I think that it would be advantageous if the proposed words were to be added to the legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My name is also attached to this amendment. I should like to add my support for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Layton. We are not seeking to implement something new in this proposal; we are seeking to apply the principle of strict liability to Clause 56. We are doing so in line with recommendations from the European Commission which set out proposals in October 1989 to apply a common system of strict liability for waste throughout the Community.
Lord Renton: I do not think that the noble Lord appreciates the fact that by leaving the word "occupier" out of the legislation he is weakening the principle of strict liability.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall have to think carefully about that point. It certainly was not our intention to weaken the legislation. Very often the concept of proceeding against the occupier has been unsuccessful. Our intention was to pin the blame on the,
"person who deposited or caused or knowingly permitted the waste to be deposited".
That phrase has a very precise meaning, which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, welcomed. However, I must admit that he may have a point in what he said about the word "occupier".
Lord Layton: I should like to deal with this point. It concerns the issue of whether a person is an occupier and knowingly permits the waste to be deposited. The implication here is that the,
"person who deposited or caused or knowingly permitted the waste to be deposited",
could be the occupier, but that is not necessarily the case; the person concerned could be a third party. Therefore, the wording of the amendment would cover an occupier if that was the case..
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In other words, the occupier is innocent if he did not deposit the waste or cause or knowingly permit the waste to be deposited. On reflection, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right. However, this gives me an opportunity to rectify my negligence in failing to answer the noble Lord's question earlier when he challenged me to define a producer of waste. The European Commission defines a producer of waste as someone producing the waste in the course of his occupation or activity. That is the definition we had in mind. However, I concede that the wording we have used has not been adequately defined in that way.
Lord Hylton: I think that we have reached the point in the Bill where we are concerned with illegal and unwanted fly-tipping; that is, the depositing on land of refuse and rubbish of all kinds. I speak with some feeling on the matter as one who has been the victim of such procedures on occasions in the past.
Clause 56 talks about "any land". Therefore, it could be any owner or occupier who is the innocent victim of fly-tipping. It does not seem to me that the Bill does much to protect the innocent victim. Moreover, I am not sure that the amendment provides any further protection. Perhaps the Government can throw some light on the matter.
Lord Reay: I must say that we have considerable sympathy with these amendments which seek to take the burden off the occupier of the land and put it on the person who deposited the waste. We certainly would not want to see innocent occupiers of land who are victims of fly-tipping being held responsible for the removal of the waste and having to pay for it. However, there is already relief in the clause for innocent occupiers and provisions for recovering costs from the fly-tipper.
Under subsection (3) occupiers of land are protected against having to remove waste and having to pay for its removal as long as they did not deposit
1514
the waste or did not permit its deposit on their land. That leaves the question of trying to get at the guilty fly-tipper as well as the conniving occupier. Under subsection (8)(b) there is already a power to recover costs from the person who deposited the waste. I think that this is better than a power to force him to clear it up. We would not want to trust a fly-tipper to make a good job of clearing up the waste he had deposited. One might ask oneself where he would be likely to put it next. Therefore, there is no need for these amendments.
Lord Layton: I do not find that response very satisfactory. At the end of the day, we still have the situation where the innocent occupier has to pay out the money and then reclaim it. For example, what happens if the fly-tipping is of a very unpleasant controlled waste of some kind which will cost a considerable amount of money to remove? Will the occupier be responsible for that expenditure and then have to recover the money afterwards? Does he have to arrange to have the waste removed from his backyard, his field or wherever when he is totally innocent? Does he have to take on this burden? Finally, do the Government feel that this responsibility should be shifted on to a totally innocent party?
I shall study carefully the Minister's response but I feel that I may have to return to the matter at a later stage. I reserve the right to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 246B not moved.]
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Duty of waste regulation authorities as respects closed landfills]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 246BA:
Page 64, line 23, after ("gases") insert ("(including methane)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with Clause 58. I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I read out the first section of the clause. it says:
"Except as respects land in relation to which a site licence is in force, it shall be the duty of every waste regulation authority to cause its area to be inspected from time to time to detect whether any land is in such a condition, by reason of the relevant matters affecting the land, that it may cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health".
Then we move on to subsection (2), the subject of the amendment, which reads:
"The matters affecting land relevant for the purposes of this section are the concentration or accumulation in, and the emission or discharge from, the land of noxious gases" —
and we are inserting at that point the words "including methane"—
"or noxious liquids caused by deposits of controlled waste in the land"
The Minister will have deduced that this is a probing amendment. We want him to say something specific about what the Government have in mind when he tells the Committee, as I am sure he will, that they are as concerned as anyone that the

1515
problems of methane gas should be dealt with. In other words, we should like to know what they intend to do in this respect. Do they intend to lay a duty on other people and not upon themselves or do they intend to deal with the problems caused by methane gas?
The Minister may say that the wording of Clause 58(2) can also cover methane gas. Methane gas causes a number of problems. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us how the Government contemplate dealing wih contaminated land in general. On Third Reading in the other place reference was made to the decision that district councils will be required to produce registers of contaminated land. To date, there have been no indications of how that requirement will be introduced into the Bill.
We are anxious to make progress, and although a great deal more could be said, it would be helpful to the Committee and to those who have professional and environmental responsibilities if the Minister could explain what will happen. Landfill gas is a mixture of potentially explosive toxic asphysciant gases. The environmental consequences of landfill gas migration can be substantial. They range from nuisance to damage to persons, property and vegetation. I have heard on the radio and read in the newspapers some disturbing illustrations of where the escape of methane gas from various landfill sites has permeated property, brickwork, and so on. It is an important matter, and I should be pleased to hear the Minister's comments.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may intervene for a moment. If the amendment had been changed so that the clause reads,
"from, the land of noxious gases or combustible gases or noxious liquids",
that would have covered the whole issue. One of the problems is that a number of combustible gases have no smell and one is unaware that they exist until one strikes a match—and then, bang!
Lord Hesketh: I fully understand the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and his desire to put the words "methane gas" on the face of the Bill. Pure methane gas may be colourless, and odourless. However, it is the potential danger against which we want to protect ourselves and the environment. That gas is flammable and can form explosive mixtures which in my mind means that it is potentially damaging to the environment and to those persons living in it. Hence the word "noxious" which, according to my dictionary, means hurtful and must include such a substance.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the amendment is on that basis unnecessary. The dangers of methane gas from landfill sites are well understood, and local authorities are fully alive to the need for monitoring and for controls and remedial work where necessary.
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has issued Waste Management Paper No. 27 as a technical
1516
memorandum on monitoring and control, and has also conducted a survey of sites with local authorities which has identified some 1,000 sites as potentially at risk from landfill gas. The Government have specifically earmarked £33 million as a capital allocation to local authorities for remedial work on closed sites for 1990–91 with the prospect of similar allocations for further years. Priority will be given to work on any of the 1,000 identified sites and that will include any preparatory monitoring. Project approvals worth some £19 million have already been issued to local authorities for their use of resources within that allocation. Work on active sites will continue as a feature of day-to-day operations.
I can assure the noble Lord that monitoring of noxious gases includes methane gas, and I am sure that he will see that local authorities will continue to monitor landfill gas under those responsibilities.
The point about "noxious" is that if methane gas were the only trouble to come out of landfill sites it would be simpler to say so. The difficulty is that many nasty things come out of landfill which is why the provision is as it is in line 23.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister. He will understand that I do not want to press the matter. I was interested to hear that the survey had identified about 1,000 active sites. My information is that it uncovered 1,300. The local authorities must be having a major blitz and getting rid of those sites by the yardfull. Whether there are 1,000 to 1,300 active sites from which noxious gases can escape, there are grave anxieties.
As the Minister is aware, those matters have been drawn to our attention by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which has the support of the ACC. I hope they will take heart from what the Minister said and understand that the amendment is not necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the House does not return to this business before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Bill
7.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Causing or permitting child under 14 to ride on road without protective headgear]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("permit") insert (", without reasonable excuse,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I moved three amendments whose central purpose was to protect from prosecution parents and

1517
de facto guardians, and owners of horses and ponies who are not parents or guardians, in cases where children, in particular older children, had, for example, undone their chinstraps without the older person's knowledge or consent.
The basic aim of the amendments received considerably more support, it is fair to say, from noble Lords in all parts of the House than most of our other amendments. Protection from prosecution of the absentee owner of a horse or pony, acting in good faith, was urged by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and, subject to one proviso to which I was happy to agree, by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. However, in the end, one amendment was negatived and the other two were withdrawn on the understanding that I would return at a later stage with an improved version, taking into account the reservations that had been expressed in Committee.
I had it in mind to introduce two inevitably complicated and verbose amendments on the lines of, "It shall be a defence to any prosecution brought under this section to prove" and so on; but I decided that it was far better in every way, from the point of view of simplicity and clarity to follow the excellent precedents set by other statutes, merely to interpose the three words, "without reasonable excuse".
The concept of "reasonable excuse" is found in statutes dating back to at least 1870—that is to say, 120 years. The most recent example—and from the Bill's point of view the most pertinent and relevant—is to be found in the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Chilren) Act 1988. The parallel with the Bill is a precise one because when the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Bill was being drafted, it was recognised that parents can only do their best. They cannot do more. They can buckle the children's belts up in the back seat and tell them firmly not to undo the belts, but in the last resort they cannot watch their children like hawks every minute of the journey. Parents must keep their eyes on the road. Therefore there is a necessity for the insertion of the words, "without reasonable excuse", which significantly do not appear in the Bill concerning the wearing of seatbelts by adults also piloted through the House by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford.
It is no use saying that in such circustances probably the police would not prosecute or that in the event of a prosecution probably the courts would not convict. Once certain powers are laid down for the police, there is no absolute guarantee that they will not be used. In effect there is an absolute offence. Even if the defendant is acquitted or the conviction is overturned on appeal, he or she still has the trauma of going to court, with all the worry and the cost involved. There are plenty of precedents for this kind of legislation. Naturally the excuse must be reasonable. An unreasonable excuse would not convince the police or, if it came to it, the courts, and would still invite prosecution.
During the Committee stage debate, at col. 989 of Hansard for 20th June, my noble friend Lady Masharn said:
"I do not think that, if he has done his best, the owner should be liable".
1518
Nor do we. That is why, following in the footsteps of the "seatbelts for children" Act, to paraphrase, it is both reasonable and necessary to provide safeguards for that owner or the conscientious parent who has done his or her best. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. It is true that the police will not come in to premises and keep watch to see whether or not children have hats on. The problem is that if there is an accident, there is an inquiry. If there is an inquiry, the facts come out and it is all a matter of insurance and damages involving people who deal with children. It is important whether or not the children wear the hats and the problems occur where there is an accident. It is matter of the parent using his best endeavours, and one cannot do more than that. If "without reasonable excuse" is the same as using one's best endeavours, then that is fair enough.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am sorry but I have to take issue with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. The amendment is quite unnecessary: it opens the floodgates to people arguing about what is and what is not reasonable. People can always think up an excuse for not doing things in this life. If they are not given the excuse in the first place, there is no argument.
The purpose of the Bill is to require young children to be properly protected with the proper headgear. It is quite clear: either one agrees with that or one disagrees with it. If we agree with it then we should not put in other provisions that we will excuse this or that. There is no excuse. It is verging on being criminal to allow any young child to ride any animal without the proper headgear. I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I begin by saying to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, that the question of reasonableness comes before the courts every day. Courts are always having to determine whether somebody acted reasonably: it is the commonest occurrence in the world. I should like to think that we could establish a rule that no Private Member's Bill would ever create an offence involving strict liability. That is to say that the person charged has no defence at all provided that the facts stated in the legislation are proved by the prosecution.
I say that because, generally speaking, Private Member's Bills are of limited application and limited interest to Parliament. There must be exceptions to that. If a Private Member were to introduce a Bill to restore the death penalty, I dare say that great interest would be aroused. However, generally, Private Member's Bills deal with rather small matters which do not engage the same amount of parliamentary attention as government Bills involving larger issues.
In Committee I ventured to cite the licensing Act because, if not exactly a precedent for this Bill, it is a parallel matter. It involves the sometimes rather difficult problem of a licensee of a public house having to decide whether a child whom he has never

1519
seen before is above or below the permitted age. That is much the same problem as that faced by the proprietors of riding establishments under this Bill. Under the licensing Act, having been given a great deal of attention by Parliament, a statutory defence was inserted into the Act. If the licensee proves that he acted in good faith and that the young person was apparently over the permitted age, that is a good defence. If prosecuted, the licensee is not guilty.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, now cites the perhaps closer parallel of the legislation on seat belts for young children. It is written into the Act that the person charged is guilty only if he has acted without reasonable excuse. Parliament is criticised for creating too many criminal offences. We do not wish to create unnecessary criminal offences by saying that every riding establishment proprietor is liable to be guilty of an offence, however much he acts in good faith, when faced with the rather difficult matter of deciding a child's age.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that parents could only do their best. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, said that parents could only use their best endeavours. Licensees can only use their best endeavours. The proprietors of riding establishments can only use their best endeavours. They may make mistakes, but if they do their best and act in good faith, let us not automatically make them criminals because the Bill involves strict liability and does not allow a defence.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Then we shall not unnecessarily make criminals out of riding establishment proprietors.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. Clause 1(2)(b) appears to create an absolute offence, in that the owner of the horse, who might be a thousand miles away, is automatically guilty. I know that this was covered at Committee stage and that amendments to clear up the matter were rejected. However, it seems to me that this amendment would also cover the situation and would mean that the offence would no longer be potentially a statutory one.
The whole matter arose before over the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. The case of Sweet v. Parsley reached this House on appeal before it was decided that the categories of statutory offence should not be extended without clear and express words in the section of the Act creating a new offence. The House referred back to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920 in order to construe the words used in the 1965 Act. It was decided that the categories of statutory offence should not be extended and that there should be an element of mens rea; in other words one should be aware that one is committing an offence.
However, the Bill quite specifically states that "any owner" of the horse may be liable. It seems quite clear that there is no preceding Act under which we may construe that this is not a new absolute offence. Without the words "without reasonable excuse", someone will have to bring a test case all the way to the House of Lords at incredible expense, or alternatively he will be fined because he cannot
1520
afford to do so. There are a lot of people who cannot afford to bring cases to the House of Lords but who are not eligible for legal aid either. They are caught in a trap between those two margins. This is a reasonable amendment and would clear up what could potentially be a great difficulty.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, if it is a matter of the age of the child, would it not be easy for the child and the parent to give the child's date of birth to the owner of a riding establishment before the child signs on for lessons?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will not accept this amendment. It would seriously weaken the Bill. One of the enormous attractions of the Bill as it stands is its simplicity and clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, admires that in other legislation. The introduction of the phrase "without reasonable excuse" would lead to endless arguments in the courts about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, illustrated that. We have to remember that we are legislating to save children from accidents. The question of the owner of the horse is well covered in Clause 1(2)(c), which states:
"any person other than its owner who has custody of or is in possession of the horse immediately before the child rides it".
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, under the terms of that paragraph both those people would be guilty of an offence. It is not a matter of one or the other. Both the owner and any person other than the owner who has custody could be prosecuted under the terms of the paragraph.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, possibly they both could be prosecuted, but it is unlikely that prosecutions would be brought against an owner who was 1,000 miles away.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, that occurred in the case of Sweet v. Parsley in 1969.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we are on Report and I must press on and finish. I believe I have covered all the points I wanted to make. There is the question of opening the Bill to abuse. There are unscrupulous people who will use the phrase "without reasonable excuse" to avoid their responsibilities. I ask your Lordships once again to remember that we are legislating to protect children. In that case we must do everything to keep the Bill as straight, simple and clear as we possibly can. I hope that the amendment will not succeed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she tell the House whether she or any Member on the Labour Benches objected to the inclusion of these words in the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act where precisely the same considerations as she has just advanced apply?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, on this occasion I speak for myself and not for my noble friends. I was not present during the passage of the legislation on seat

1521
belts. I have not read Hansard and I do not know the answer to the question of the noble Lord. However, there does not seem to me to be a parallel case.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she thought that the two people in question would not be prosecuted. That is marvellous if that is the case, but there is no reason why they should not be. We are not legislating for what might happen. A police force could bring such prosecutions.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think perhaps I should speak before the noble Baroness. I must say first of all that I am surprised that my noble friend Lady Nicol is so rigid on this matter. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will not heed her advice and will accept this amendment. It is a most reasonable amendment and will give the protection to parents or other owners of horses that should properly be given to them. After all, the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988 was a Government Bill. Therefore one must trust that the Government knew exactly what they were doing. They introduced that protection because they thought it was reasonable to do so. The words of that Act bear repeating. New Section 33C(i) states:
"Except as provided by regulations a person shall not, without reasonable excuse, drive a motor vehicle",
etc.
Both pieces of legislation concern movement. One is about driving a motor car and the other is about riding a horse. Both pieces of legislation concern the movement of people. This Bill concerns the movement of people and animals. Both pieces of legislation are about protection. One concerns the protection of children in the rear seats of cars and the other concerns the protection of children on horseback. I cannot therefore understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, should refuse to accept the amendment. I sincerely hope that she will accept it. If she does not, all kinds of things may happen. I have heard of instances where magistrates have found it difficult to decide in cases of truancy whether parents were liable. The parents have rightly claimed that they sent their children off to school and threatened that there would be trouble if the children did not attend school. Nevertheless, the children did not attend school.
However, the magistrates in many cases still fined the parents, although there was no way in which for various reasons they could physically have pushed their children through the gates of the school. The parents may have had to attend work, for example. That is the kind of case that may well occur unless the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is accepted.
The noble Baroness is an able and doughty debater. I have heard her criticise the Government Front Bench for rigidity on various other Bills. Therefore I hope that she will not take a Civil Service line in this case, read from her brief and say that she cannot accept the amendment under any
1522
circumstances. I believe that the amendment is reasonable. The noble Baroness should accept it and I am almost convinced that she will.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have just one point to make. I should say that I am no lawyer. Clause 1(1) of the Bill states:
"it is an offence … to cause or permit a child under the age of 14 years to ride a horse on a road unless the child is wearing protective headgear".
Do the words "to cause or permit" cover the point that is being raised? If that could be explained, it would clear up everything.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Monson has taken the wording from the legislation on child seat belts. However, that Act was framed in a very different way to this Bill. The Act provided for an absolute offence of carrying a child in a car when the latter was not wearing a restraint and where a suitable restraint was available.
There was, therefore, a need to provide a reasonable excuse defence where, for example, a driver was driving along a motorway, having ensured that his child was belted up. However, his child may find the release button after much struggling and release himself. A parallel case for the horse rider may occur where a dutiful parent has strapped a helmet to his child's head and told him to take care on the ride. However, as soon as the child is out of sight he decides the helmet is too hot and loosens the strap. The parent, however, has quite clearly not given permission to ride with the strap loose and cannot be prosecuted because in the Bill it is an offence only to cause or permit a child to ride a horse without a protective hat.
I can see no situation in which a responsible parent could reasonably require or permit a child to ride unprotected. A reasonable excuse defence is therefore unnecessary; it would serve only to reduce the effectiveness of the Bill. Therefore, I urge my noble friend Lord Monson to withdraw the amendment.
8 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be helpful if I intervene to say a few words about the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has explained the difference between this Bill and the Motor Vehicle (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988. As the noble Baroness said, legislation is carefully drafted to allow for defences where they are considered to be reasonable. The advice of parliamentary counsel was taken in the drafting of the Bill as in others. There was lengthy correspondence on how "cause or permit" would be interpreted in the courts. The matter was also debated in another place and examined again afterwards. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will accept my assurance that "cause or permit" is the best form of words in this instance.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down can he say whether the Government would accept in principle an amendment at Third Reading on the lines: "It shall

1523
be a defence in any prosecution brought under this section for the defendant to prove that he had taken all reasonable care"? Is that acceptable to the Government in theory?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as this is a Private Member's Bill I cannot give any assurances as to what the Government might or might not accept at another stage.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am not very happy about this. I am extremely grateful for all the support that I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, my noble friend Lord Erroll, and my noble friends—on this particular issue—Lord Airedale and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Both the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and my noble friend Lord Erroll cited legal precedents which I believe have a bearing in this case. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, did not object when those words appeared in the rear seat belts for children Bill, possibly for the reasons advanced by my noble friend. Nor did anybody on the Labour Benches object. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, a semi-rhetorical question. I can tell her that I was present at all stages of that Bill and no objections were raised to the inclusion of those words.
It seems to me that the key word here is not "excuse" but "reasonable". A trivial excuse would get nowhere. I believe that if the phrase "without reasonable excuse" is left out prosecutions could be brought unjustly, despite the advice of parliamentary counsel. However, I am conscious of the fact that if I were to press the amendment tonight that would obviate any amendments being brought forward at Third Reading with the same general aim. Tempted as I am, in view of the great support that I have received tonight, to press the amendment I do not want to risk not being able to press an amendment at Third Reading. At that stage we might be able to tighten the definition still further so as to get round the technical objections that have been raised in connection with this amendment.
As I said, the key word is not "excuse" but "reasonable". It is only reasonable objections that would get anywhere. I am not convinced that the defence which it was suggested could be put forward by a potential defendent would work in every case. However, it is probably best to study what has been said and to take further legal advice. For that reason I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 22, after ("foal") insert ("(over the age of five months)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, moved an amendment to delete the word "foal" from the list of animals to be included under the broad definition of "horse". I was happy to support him on the grounds that to legislate against
1524
non-existent dangers makes the law an ass. After all, nobody is going to put a saddle and bridle on an unbroken foal and ride it on grass, let alone on the road.
However, my noble friend maintained that, contrary to the expert advice that I have received—namely, that a foal ceases to be a foal and becomes either a colt or a filly at the age of six months—the upper age limit for a foal is in practice rather imprecise. It may be that her expert advice is more expert than my expert advice. I do not rule that out. However, that has only a minor bearing on the argument. The idea of riding a foal of nine or 12 months on the highway is almost as improbable as the idea of riding one of six months. Nevertheless, I decided to reintroduce an amended version of my earlier amendment to take the reservations of my noble friend Lady Masham into account.
To avoid the risk of being accused of tautology in the event of the upper age limit of the foal being indeed six months, I propose now an age limit for the purposes of this Bill of five months. That has the added merit of being the earliest age at which a foal can be weaned. Six months is more usual but foals can occasionally be weaned at five months.
As I see it, there is only one objection which the Department of Transport could raise to the proposal. The department believes passionately in the scientific maxim that whatever can happen sooner or later will happen. In other words, however unlikely it seems today that someone will ride a young foal on the highway, at some unspecified time in the future somebody is sure to do so. If that is to be the argument, in order to be consistent I shall have to move Amendment No. 3 to include zebras in the Bill. This may be a good moment to discuss Amendment No. 3.
There are a number of things not all of your Lordships will know about zebras. The first is that they are definitely members of the horse family, just like asses. Biologically, a zebra is closer to a horse than is an ass. The second is that although it is difficult to break in and train zebras for riding, it has been done on occasion. I understand that in the 19th century a Member of your Lordships' House was in the habit of driving a four-in-hand in which the horses had been replaced by zebras. Between the wars some intrepid white settlers in the Happy Valley of Kenya occasionally rode zebras, although I do not know whether they stayed on very long.
Thirdly, zebras can be crossed with both horses and asses. The resulting hybrids are probably somewhat easier to break in and train than zebras are: that is another possibility that ought to be covered. The fourth point, which has a bearing on a matter we discussed at some length in Committee, is that Huxley, writing in 1862—there were very many more mules and pack animals working in Britain at that time than there are today when they are practically non-existent—stated:
"It is a very rare thing to see a Hinny in this country".
From that, given how things have changed in the past 128 years, the conclusion must be that there are many more zebras in Britain than there are hinnies. So, if such improbable and unlikely mounts as young

1525
foals and hinnies are to be covered by this Bill, just in case someone at some unspecified time in the future may ride them, certainly zebras ought to be included. For the moment, I shall revert to Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we are going over a little of the ground that we have already covered in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he had not heard of anybody riding a foal. He asked me at Committee stage whether I had heard of anybody riding a foal. I said no but that if I waited long enough, I was quite sure that I should do so. I am equally sure that there will be some idiot out there who is prepared to put a small child on a small animal—a foal. As I said before, that damages the foal and we must think of protecting the animal as well as the child. The likely result of a small child on the back of such a young animal is that the animal will dislodge the child. There will thus be the situation of a soft skull meeting a very hard pavement.
With regard to Amendment No. 3, I agree with the noble Lord. Every conceivable kind of equine quadruped should be covered by the Bill. Should the noble Lord move that amendment, I shall support it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, at this stage, to save the time of the House, I should like to put forward a proposition which may please my noble friend Lord Monson. Having given thought to foals and zebras, perhaps I could bring back an amendment at Third Reading to include the definition used in the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, which would be comprehensive. The definition reads:
" 'horse" ' includes pony, mule, donkey or other equine animal".
That would include all ages and all equine animals.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, if the noble Baroness were to table such an amendment at Third Reading, the Government would support it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is nice to get somewhere at last. It is not that I feel very strongly about this point; but it seems sensible. I do not think, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested, that anybody would put a saddle and bridle on a foal and take it onto a public road: that is what we are talking about. We are not speaking about perching a child on a foal of under five months in a field in order to take a photograph, even assuming that that could be done, holding the foal by a halter. We are talking about taking an animal onto a public highway. I think it is extremely improbable.
However, if my noble friend will, as it were, rewrite that clause of the Bill so as to bring in the definition—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord has given way. Before he accepts that proposition, I hope he understands that it will extend the scope of the Bill. I thought that he and I wanted to narrow its scope.
Lord Monson: My Lords, that is perfectly true. I should indeed like to narrow it, certainly so far as concerns exempting people who act in good faith. With regard to the range of animals, I rather feel that we lost that battle last time round. I wish that that were not the case and that the rest of the Committee had seen the force and merit of our arguments but it did not seem to do so. At this stage or at Third Reading it would be a waste of time to pursue that point.
If the Bill is to pass into law, it ought to be sensible and comprehensive. There is a school of thought which maintains that it is far better not to improve a Bill of whose objects one basically disapproves because the more anomalies and inconsistencies there are in it, the more silly it will look on the statute book and the less attention people will pay to it. However, one must be responsible about these matters. It is probably sensible to accept the offer of my noble friend Lady Masham although, as I said, I do not feel very strongly about this point. It is logical, given that the department feels that every conceivable contingency must be covered just in case.
For that reason, unless my noble friend wishes me not to withdraw this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 P.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.15 to 8.35 p.m.]

Environmental Protection Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 58.
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 246C:
Page 64, line 32, at end insert ("In the case where waste was deposited prior to 1st Janauary 1976, the waste shall be deemed to be controlled waste where it would have been controlled waste if it had been deposited after 1st January 1976.").
The noble Lord said: The words "controlled waste" only became a term in law by the implementation of the relevant section of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 on 1st January 1976. That is the legal situation. It seems doubtful whether waste deposited prior to that date would be classed as controlled waste. Although intended to cover waste deposited prior to January 1976, the words in brackets,
"whether before or after 1st January 1967",
do not appear to fulfil that intention.
It is suggested that the words of the amendment clarify the position. This is purely a legal matter and I have been told that the problem arose on consideration of a case. Because the definition was not sufficiently exact it was impossible to continue with the case. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: There is general recognition that we need a proper basis for tackling the problems of

1527
landfill gas and leaching at closed landfill sites. We may differ on the details. However, there seems to be a consensus. Waste regulation sites must be surveyed. Problems must be assessed and dealt with. I hope that the debates on this clause will be illuminated by this consensus rather than darkened by our minor differences of approach.
These amendments are a good example. There is no difference in our objectives, simply a difference of drafting. We entirely agree that this clause must cover waste deposited at any date, however long ago. The problems of such sites might persist for 30 or more years and we have no intention of setting any backstop date on the effect of the clause.
I can assure my noble friend that in spite of his misgivings the clause has this effect. The phrase,
"whether before or after 1st January 1976",
unambiguously brings under the clause all sites where waste has been deposited that would have been controlled waste if the Bill had been in force when the deposit was made. This is made clear in the supplementary definition of "controlled waste" for the purposes of this clause only at the end of subsection (3). Because of that definition, controlled waste in this clause is household, commercial and industrial waste as defined in the Bill. That means that a single definition applies to deposits of waste made in the period before 1976, the period from 1976 until this Bill comes into force and to future deposits. We would not want any possibility that a WRA would have to undertake a kind of archaeology of rubbish to put a date on waste before deciding whether the site came under Clause 58.
I hope that my noble friend is heartened by these assurances and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Layton: I am sure that the legal brains have been working on this matter. I accept the Minister's explanation. I hope that he is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No 246D not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 246E:
Page 64, line 45, at end insert:
("4A) Where it appears to a waste regulation authority that any land is in such a condition as to be likely to cause pollution to the water environment it shall be the duty of the authority forthwith to inform the National Rivers Authority.".
The noble Lord said: Clause 58 places a duty on waste regulation authorities to monitor and secure the safety of closed landfill sites where a site licence is not in force. The purpose of the amendment is to require a WRA to notify the National Rivers Authority when any land in its area is likely to cause pollution of the water environment.
Under Section 115 of the Water Act 1989 the NRA has the power to take action to prevent water pollution. However, if the authority is to exercise that power effectively it must have as much information as is available to the WRA in respect of landfill sites whose condition is likely to cause pollution. I suggest that the amendment speaks for itself. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: It is a particular pleasure to be able to welcome an amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. We have heard how important it is that our water supplies should be protected against leachate from waste sites. There is already recognition of this in the procedures for consulting the National Rivers Authority when granting licences. It does indeed seem entirely reasonable that the NRA should also be consulted about problems with disused sites.
I have only one or two slight doubts about the wording of the amendment. In particular I ask: is it actually enough merely to "inform" the NRA? Perhaps it would be better to require the WRA to "consult" the NRA, giving it a statutory voice in the measures that should be taken at a problem site. With that very slight qualification, perhaps my noble friend will not be too upset if I undertake to take away the amendment and overhaul the wording with a view to bringing it forward again on Report.
Lord Crickhowell: The Committee will recognise the fact that, as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, I am particularly pleased that the Minister has agreed to take the amendment away and look at the wording. In doing so I ask him to examine a couple of related matters to which I need not return when we reach Clause 61. Clauses 58 and 61 are related. Clause 61(1)(j) refers to publicity and public registers in regard to the exercise of any power under Clause 58.
Two separate points arise. It is extremely important that the National Rivers Authority is informed and consulted. It is equally important to ensure that there are full and comprehensive registers for public inspection of all such events. I am uncertain about the wording because paragraph (j) refers to the powers of the WRA under Clause 58. However, with the exception of subsection (7) and the power given in subsection (3) by the word "may", Clause 58 refers to "duties". Powers and duties are different. I am by no means clear that when registering the information it will be necessary to register only the cases in which action is taken in order to correct a situation or whether it will be necessary for WRAs to include in the register every visit and every inspection carried out.
I do not expect my noble friend to respond immediately to these detailed points. However, it would be helpful for the Government to confirm that the wording is right and that the words "duty" and "power" are correctly drafted and do not need amendment.
I wish to take the opportunity of repeating the question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He asked about the register of contaminated land which on 30th April the Minister in another place undertook to introduce by means of an amendment in this Chamber. One of our difficulties in considering the clauses is that as yet we do not have the Government's amendment. In a public statement made at that time the Minister said:
"We envisage that these registers will identify sites of potential contamination, based on past land use. In this way, they will

1529
provide a means of alerting interested parties to the potential for contamination so that, where necessary, more detailed site surveys can be undertaken. At the same time, I want to ensure that we avoid extending planning blight in those parts of the country with a legacy of industrial land use".
That statement is relevant to a later amendment tabled by the Opposition.
I understand that the Government are consulting and wish to get the provision right. However, as we discuss the powers that are available and the information that should be contained in the registers, it would be helpful if as soon as possible the Government could indicate their intentions as regards the promised amendment which we still do not have.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Renton, responds to the amendment, I wish to add my support to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, particularly as he referred to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Graham. It is extremely important, and by now extremely urgent, that the Government's commitment to provide at least a register of contaminated land should be honoured. We should be given a better indication of the reason why a commitment made in another place has not yet been honoured. Since amendments have not appeared we must, at the very least, be given a commitment that they will appear in good time before the Report stage in this House. The reminder given by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is extremely valuable.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps between now and Report consideration can be given to making reference to Section 115 of the Water Act 1989 in this legislation so that there is a cross reference. There are occasions on which an authority may not have locked at other legislation: it is always helpful to draw its attention to that.
Lord Renton: I thank my noble friend Lord Arran for the forthcoming way in which he accepted the principle of my amendment. I look forward to seeing a government amendment tabled on Report which will fulfil the same object but drafted as he has advised.
I am sure that meanwhile my noble friend will take seriously the important points raised by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell on behalf of the National Rivers Authority. They are points which should not be overlooked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 246F:
Page 65, line 11, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: As the clause is currently worded, the local authority has powers to clean up polluted land where it is creating pollution or harm to human health. They then attempt to recoup the loss from the landowner. This seems rather a convoluted way of doing things which may create unnecessary delay and may affect local authority
1530
spending. It also seems to create unnecessary legal difficulties: for example, disputes between the landowner and the local authority as to whether the work was truly necessary in the first place, as under Clause 58(7). The amendment proposes a much more straightforward solution. The local authority would be able to get the landowner to clean up the problem himself and pay for it.
This would be much less of a burden on public expenditure as it seems to apply the polluter pays principle directly. It would be up to the landowner to decide the best methods by which to abate the problem by appropriate means. Only as a last resort should the local authority do the work and attempt to recoup the cost. The onus for the cleaning up is clearly placed upon the owner of the land and not the local authority or the community charge payer. The only exceptions would be in the case of land where a WRA has issued a certificate of completion under Clause 38. The existing Clause 58(9) is retained in the amendment, renumbered as Clause 58(15). This ensures that local authorities have regard to any guidance received from the Secretary of State. Such guidance should prevent local authorities from being over-zealous in the use of these powers. This is perhaps the other side of the coin referred to in Amendments Nos. 246A and 246B. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This group of amendments introduces two issues: who should undertake the legal works and who should pay for them. I have to say that these issues have been the subject of more soul-searching and scrutiny in my department over the past few months than any other in Part II. We are not unaware of the difficulties but have concluded that the course we have chosen, with crucial government amendments yet to be discussed, is right.
I have listened carefully to the noble Lord's arguments, but they have merely strengthened my belief. I do not find the alternative system offered by these amendments very attractive and I shall not bore the Committee with the technical detail or defects—for example, there is no offence in subsection (6) as referred to in Amendment No. 246H. Rather, I shall try to outline the objections in principle to the noble Lord's proposals.
As I say, there are two issues here. The first is the easier to settle: who should undertake remedial work on long-disused landfill sites? We must remember that we are talking about sites where there is no licence. The current owner and occupier may well have nothing to do with the waste deposits and are unlikely to know anything about landfill gas or methane. We are not talking here about a simple job like clearing litter. This is highly technical work which may well involve excavation, boreholes, drains and the installation and operation of complex equipment to extract or burn off methane.
As I said to your Lordships last week, this is not a job for amateurs. It has to be done and supervised by experts in order to avoid serious risks of fire, explosion or contamination of water supplies. That is why we believe that the experts and the waste regulation authorities should be responsible, if necessary using specialist outside contractors. In

1531
passing, perhaps I might express the hope that this will give the lie to the accusation of always trying to take work away from local authorities. In this case, the Government firmly believe that this is the proper function of the public sector.
Having disposed of the question of who should do the work, there remains the question of who should pay. The arguments were rehearsed exhaustively in another place during Committee. There are four people who might be asked to pay for remedial work: the person who deposited the waste, the waste regulation authority who does the remedial work, the present occupier of the land and the owner of the land. Pursuing the person who deposited the waste will often be fruitless and, if they have a licence, unfair. It would not be reasonable to call on a former licensee who had acted within the terms of his licence and the conditions laid upon him by the authority at the time. Nor, in many cases, could the person still be found. The intention is that future licensees would remain subject to long-term conditions after site closure, for ex-licensees may be companies who have disappeared. Nor do we want to make waste regulation authorities pay for works out of the public purse, except as a last resort. As noble Lords opposite have pointed out, we have to have regard to the cost burdens of new duties on authorities.
That leaves only the present-day occupier and the owner of the land. Of the two, we have opted to charge the owner. After all, it is he who will benefit from any increased value of the land consequent upon remedial works. For these reasons, I do not accept that the occupier should undertake and pay for the work done, as suggested in the amendment. My noble friend's Amendment No. 246M seems restrained on this point. I note that the occupier would have to undertake the work specified in a notice, and presumably would be expected to pay for it. However, if the occupier defaults and the local authority has to undertake the work, then the cost is recoverable from the owner. That is the correct course, and it is the one adopted in the clause as at present drafted.
The only other feature of these amendments is the suggestion of an appeals system. The Government considered the possibility of an appeal against cost recovery, which was suggested in Committee in another place; but there are some grounds for appeal. The grounds suggested in Amendment No. 246 add nothing to that proviso. We already have in subsection (7) the proviso that no one need pay their costs where they have been incurred unnecessarily.
When I move to Amendments Nos. 246J and 246L, I shall explain the Government's solution to hard cases where it would be oppressive to recover costs from the landowner. I am grateful to my noble friend for the meticulous work that has gone into the alternative arrangements that he has suggested, particularly as it has given me a chance to put the Government's case at some length, and for that I apologise to the Committee.
Lord Layton: I thank the Minister for a very full reply. This was in many ways a probing amendment. I am not totally happy with the reply, but I am not
1532
totally happy with the amendment either. I beg leave to withdraw it at this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 246G and 246HA not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 246J:
Page 65, line 16, at end insert ("or part of the cost").
The noble Lord said: In one sense, Amendments Nos. 246K and 246L are a continuation of my reply a moment ago to the noble Lord, Lord Layton. Having regard to the time I took over the last set of amendments, I shall hope not to delay your Lordships too long on this matter. The only remaining flaw has been the possibility that the costs of remedial works may be quite disproportionate to the means of the landowner. At the extreme there might be housing built on or next to an ancient waste site. We hope that would not happen now, but it might have done in the past.
We do not want an authority to seek to recover what might be multi-million pound bills from owner-occupiers of housing who might not even know they were on a former landfill site. Rather than rely entirely on the mercy and discretion of authorities, this pair of amendments requires them to have regard to any hardship that might result from recovering the full costs. They may then remit all or part of the costs. In such exceptional cases, the balance would have to come from the public purse. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It does not come very well, I suppose, to stand up from this Dispatch Box and oppose the recognition of hardship. However, I am worried about the opening which is given by Amendments Nos. 246J and 246L. The point is that we are trying to defend all the time the polluter pays principle. The Minister has given, in the example that he chose, a touching case of owner-occupiers who have inherited much later pollution which is on the land they own, but for which they had no responsibility at the time the pollution was caused.
The difficulty is that that is not what is reflected in the two amendments as drafted. They allow for the defence of hardship and for the possibility that hardship should be a suitable derogation from the responsibilities which would otherwise fall upon the occupier: in other words, in most cases the polluter.
There is a serious risk that the polluter will not defend the environmental standards that he should be required to defend, but will concentrate on proving inability to pay. The selective example that the Minister gave in proposing the amendments does not deal adequately with that problem. He should come back to the Committee and say what will happen, not if some distant, worthy successor—no doubt widows and children living in those owner-occupied houses—but the polluter himself then pleads hardship. How will the polluter pays principle be enforced if the amendments are agreed to?
9 P.m.
Lord Hesketh: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says, but I am interested to know

1533
whether he suggests that there should be no recourse for home owners who find themselves in the situation that I have described. In my experience, one of the most problematical areas is where there is housing built on what was a waste tip. The noble Lord suggests that that is a rare example, but it is not so rare as he thinks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not suggest there should be no rules; I suggest that the amendment should be more tightly drawn. If that is what the Government intend—that may well be a geniune case and I do not dispute it—the amendment should be drawn to cover only those cases where the occupier or the owner bears no causal relationship to the person who caused the pollution. As the amendment stands, the original polluter who is still the owner or occupier may plead hardship and get away with it. That is not acceptable. Even if we do not oppose the amendments and they arc incorporated in the Bill, the Government should at least agree to look again at the matter and try to distinguish between the innocent parties and the guilty parties.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the remarks that I made earlier in reply to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, which referred to cases where the authority has the right to retrieve from those who are the polluters. The examples that I gave involved cases where the polluter had disappeared. That is why we must protect the innocent parties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The examples that the Minister gave are not the same as those that would be covered by the amendment. The amendment does not distinguish between innocent parties and guilty parties. That is the point I am trying to make.
Lord Hesketh: I shall be interested to hear the noble Lord when he presents his amendment at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 246K not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 246L:
Page 65, line 23, at end insert:
("(In deciding whether to recover the cost and, if so, how much to recover of the cost which it is entitled to recover under subsection (7) above, the authority shall have regard to any hardship which the recovery may cause to the owner of the land.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 246M and 246N not moved.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McNair Lord McNair moved Amendment No. 247:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Tenders: Value of recycled waste
In assessing tenders for waste disposal, relevant authorities shall have regard to the desirabilities of recycling and shall assess the short-term cost saving per tonne of landfilling against any financial credits or resale value derived from diverted waste which is ultimately recycled or reclaimed where such value can be clearly demonstrated.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to end the practice of diluting the real cost of consigning domestic waste to the ground during the competitive tendering stage.
Most people now recognise that landfilling is at best a waste of valuable resources and at worst a major environmental hazard which blights the land for decades and allows methane to pollute the ozone layer and leachates to pollute the waterways. We must therefore ensure that the Bill prevents tenders containing only part of the cost of landfilling, especially as we are now likely to see recycling options being considered alongside.
As I said when speaking to Amendments Nos. 240 to 244, it is extremely difficult to analyse on a per tonne basis the ongoing costs of site checking and maintaining landfilled sites. However, it will be possible to work backwards from the total costs for a waste disposal authority and obtain some idea of the average cost for all methods of disposal. Escalating costs that are not foreseen or foretold are not good housekeeping and do not make sense. There is little point in allowing the market to be distorted on the one hand while at the same time hoping to see alternatives to landfill develop.
More precisely, when tenders are awarded at present, a cost per tonnne must form part of the tender price. The volume of waste that is not tipped therefore represents a saving on the tipping fee per tonne. That figure could be part of a financial credit as it clearly is money saved. A more elaborate formula could be worked out subsequently as we move towards the 50 per cent. figure. That way, there need be no increase in public expenditure as the money for the credit will come from an existing landfill budget.
When the Minister discussed those issues in the excellent amendment that he moved earlier, he referred to a terminology whose definition is relevant to this amendment and to the question of net cost. My noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso asked for clarification as to the precise meaning of the word "net" in that case. I must have missed the Minister's reply and should be grateful if he would refresh my memory as to exactly what the Government intend net cost to mean. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to demonstrate that the Bill will see an end to "obscure accounting practices", as the Environment Secretary put it, and that, when evaluating tenders to process domestic waste in the future, authorities will be able to compare like with like on a cost basis and like with like on an environmental basis. I beg to move.
Lord St. John of Bletso: I support the amendment and I ask the Minister to give the Committee an assurance that the Bill will not allow the long-term and, by definition, real costs of land filling to be disguised at the competitive tendering stage. Furthermore, will the Bill address and cure what the Secretary of State recently described as an artificial depression of the real costs of landfill because of the way in which local authorities organise their accounts?
Lord Reay: This group of amendments concerns the tendering for waste disposal contracts. Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 are, I believe, founded in a genuine desire to give recycling a fair chance to compete against other, possibly cheaper, disposal options. We unequivocally support that intention. The competitive tendering requirements contained in Schedule 2 were deliberately drafted so as to impose a duty on disposal authorities to consider the comparative environmental advantages of recycling and waste minimisation. Let me make it absolutely clear that disposal authorities will not be required to accept the lowest tender. That said, we maintain that these amendments would add nothing to that requirement.
Amendment No. 247 restates that disposal authorities should weigh up the long-term benefits of recycling as opposed to the short-term cost savings of landfill. Quite simply they already can and indeed they are required to take account of such factors under Schedule 2, paragraph 18 of the Bill. Amendment No. 248 would require authorities to seek indicators or real costs as opposed to gate fees. Again this amendment is unnecessary for the simple reason that disposal contractors will be tendering on the basis of their full costs. There will be no way a contractor could hide the restoration and aftercare costs from the authority, except possibly by subsidising the costs himself. Those contractors will know full well that they will be held responsible for the costs of restoring their sites and dealing with any future remedial works. They will be left holding the baby, so the onus is on them to get their tenders right in order to take account of the full range of liabilities to which they are subject.
Amendment No. 249 seeks to impose a duty on contractors to disclose any impending legislation which may affect the cost of their tender. Again this point is covered by the fact that a contractor should when tendering take account of any factor likely to affect the cost of disposal, including impending legislation. Contractors will do everything possible to avoid being caught out because of course they will have a responsibility to dispose of the waste under the terms of the contract once it has been signed.
I am convinced therefore that these three amendments, worthy in intention as they are, are simply not necessary. Disposal authorities will in future be in a much better position to evaluate the comparative costs and benefits of various disposal options including recycling. It is up to the contractors to get their sums right in drawing up their tender for diposal contracts.
Lord McNair: I thank the Minister for his very full reply. However, I should like to press him regarding the definition of net costs that will become part of the formula to be used during the consultation process with interested parties.
Lord Reay: I am afraid that I cannot now give the noble Lord any further definition. I shall have to write to him.
Lord McNair: I am grateful to the Minister. We shall consider his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Waste other than controlled waste]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 66, line 29, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: On moving Amendment No. 250 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 251. Although Part II of the Bill does not directly affect agriculture there are provisions contained in it whereby the Secretary of State may by regulation extend controls to premises used for agriculture. In March of this year my honourable friend Mr. David Trippier indicated that his department was discussing this problem with the Ministry of Agriculture. Perhaps my noble friend could give the Committee the result of those discussions.
Amendment No. 251 would ensure that any regulations that affect agricultural waste were made jointly by the environment and agricultural Ministers. I believe that to be important. I accept that farmers are not always tidy—I am certainly guilty of being untidy at times—but keeping a farm tidy is not easy. I should like to know what advice the Government have in mind for clearing up such things as fertiliser and silage bags and other difficult to dispose of farm rubbish. For instance, recently the problem of disposing of dead animals due to BSE has become quite serious.
I raise this matter because usually the easiest way to get rid of rubbish is to burn it. However, the other day a Cleveland farmer was fined for doing just that. What have the Government in mind? Personally, I should prefer to burn my plastic and other rubbish, including string, rather than to see it scattered around the countryside making it hideous. I am concerned that banning burning of this rubbish might make the situation worse unless there is a practical alternative available. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: This clause provides for non-controlled wastes to be brought under control through regulations. Non-controlled wastes are, as the noble Lord pointed out, wastes from mines and quarries and wastes from agricultural premises. The amendment would require such regulations to be joint regulations issued by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, and to have regard to the possibility of wastes from these sources being detrimental to the countryside.
We dealt on Clause 29 with an amendment to bring agricultural wastes within the controls of this part of the Bill. I explained then that controls are already applied to disposal of such waste on farms under MAFF codes of practice. In the Government's

1537
view there would be no necessity for bringing the majority of those wastes which are disposed of on farms under these codes of practice within the provisions of this Bill.
The Agriculture Act 1986 contains provision in Section 17 that the Minister of Agriculture shall, in discharging any of his functions, have regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in so far as this is consistent with the promotion and maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry. It is already the case, therefore, that any guidance issued by MAFF concerning the disposal of agricultural waste on farms would be subject to this section of the 1986 Act, and would be required to take account of the need to protect the amenity of the countryside.
Similarly, in deciding whether to bring certain agricultural wastes under the control of this part of the Bill, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, will have regard to the potential for pollution of the environment or danger to human health that these wastes hold. The Government accept, for instance, that there is a need to ensure that the disposal of pesticides is subject to appropriate statutory controls. Discussions are continuing between the Department of the Environment and MAFF on how this might best be achieved.
Therefore, I am able to reassure the noble Lord that the amenity of the countryside will be taken into account in the preparation of MAFF codes of practice on the disposal of wastes. In drawing up regulations to bring any of these wastes into control, the Secretary of State would consider whether such wastes presented a risk to the environment.
My noble friend raised the case of a farmer prosecuted for burning, though I am not sure under what provisions the farmer was prosecuted. It does not seem likely that it was under the Control of Pollution Act. It may be that the burning of the waste caused a nuisance and the farmer was open to prosecution under legislation that will be replaced by Part III of this Bill. I hope that my noble friend will not feel the need to press his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am reasonably satisfied with that answer. Pesticides and their disposal are already very tightly controlled, and correctly so. I am not entirely happy with the answer about burning. The prosecution was under the Control of Pollution Act. The judgment was made on the blackness of the smoke. I am not sure that is a very good measure of whether something is polluting or not. I did not get as categorical an answer as I should have liked that the matter will be looked at very sympathetically in the future. At the moment, farmers are somewhat frightened of burning rubbish. The result is that sacks are wandering all over the countryside, which makes it hideous. I shall look very carefully at what my noble friend has said. I thank him for his assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 251 not moved.]
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 251A:
Page 66, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) A person who deposits or who knowingly causes or knowingly permits the deposit of any waste, other than controlled waste, that has the characteristics of special waste on any land shall be guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20.000 or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both.

(2A) A waste regulation authority may grant a person a licence to deposit waste, other than controlled waste, with the characteristics of special waste on any land in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: I think there is a little problem of drafting here. Clause 60 as currently drafted is likely to prove very difficult to use. In particular the wording of subsection (2) is very unclear and uncertain. First, it is possible to argue that,
"if the waste were special waste and any waste management licence were not in force",
catches all uncontrolled waste deposits on land as a licence would not authorise the deposit of uncontrolled waste. Licences are concerned only with controlled waste. Secondly, it can also be argued that the wording,
"if the waste were special waste",
can be construed to mean all uncontrolled waste or only such waste with the characteristics of special waste. The words "characteristics of special waste" have therefore been added to the amendment.
Although there may be other ways of interpreting the wording of the clause, there is sufficient room for doubt for it to require redrafting. This amendment seeks to clarify the position. All waste that has the characteristics of special waste should have some form of control. This may be provided by other enactments but where it is not, the WRA should be liable to issue those persons, particularly farmers and so on, with a general or specific licence for the disposal of the waste.
Finally, there also seems to be a need in the case where uncontrolled waste is deposited at a licensed waste disposal site for appropriae conditions to be enforceable which relate not only to the deposit of controlled waste but also to the deposit of uncontrolled waste. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments are a lawyer's paradise. In this clause we are dealing with waste that is not controlled waste. Unless this clause provides otherwise, none of the controlled waste regime elsewhere in this part applies to what I shall term non-controlled waste.
Amendment No. 251A is a question of drafting. I can assure the Committee that all the points made here are already covered, though I accept that it is by no means easy to discern how. The first part of the amendment offers a much expanded redrafting of subsection (2). The expansion is substantially correct and I am glad that it shows how well Members of the Committee understand the subsection. But it is not necessary. The current wording already provides for a case where particularly noxious waste is deposited, waste bad enough to be special waste

1539
if it were controlled waste. The deposit of such waste will attract the same penalties as those in Clause 32 for the illegal deposit of controlled waste. I should add for any Member of the Committee who doubts the drafting of subsection (2) that it is not new but is carried forward substantially unchanged from the equivalent provision in Section 18(2) of the 1974 Act. One parliamentary draftsman is unlikely to err but two are infallible.
The other part of Amendment No. 251A is more straightforward. The proposed subsection (2A) would permit an authority to licence the deposit of non-controlled waste. We already go most of the way towards this. Clause 34(5) already provides that, where non-controlled waste is deposited at a licensed site, that may be governed by conditions in the site licence. That prevents the nonsense of a single site taking different wastes only some of which may be governed by the licence. I would not wish to go further. In any case, if we wanted to extend licensing to the deposit of non-controlled waste at a site that was not already licensed, we would have the power to do so by regulations under Clause 60(1). For these reasons I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that the whole of Amendment No. 251A is already covered in the Bill.
That is also true of Amendment No. 251B. Members of the Committee have spotted some apparent gaps in the symmetry of our arrangements but they are not real gaps. Under subsection (2) an illegal deposit of non-controlled waste would be an offence under Clause 32. But no one can be convicted of an offence under Clause 32 if he also has a defence under Clause 32. So all the defences in Clause 32 already apply here. It is not necessary to repeat them. This applies equally to the offence where waste is deposited from a motor vehicle; the person in a position to control the use of such a vehicle will be equally guilty of an offence under Clause 32 by reason of Clause 32(5) without the necessity for repeating that provision here.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Layton has followed me through this maze with regard to the clause and has seen that there is no difference in our intentions.
Lord Layton: I thank the Minister for his very full reply. This is something of a maze. I shall study his reply, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 251B not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment no. 252:
Page 67, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 253:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause:
("Prohibition of landfill of clinical waste

.—(1) Within three years from the date of passing of this Act, the disposal of clinical waste to landfill shall be prohibited absolutely.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations to empower a prescribed authority to exempt waste disposal contractors from the provision of subsection (1) above in an emergency or where it would otherwise be impossible to dispose of such waste by incineration.

(3) The chief inspector appointed under section 16 above shall maintain a list of sites where the landfill of clinical waste may be permitted in accordance with the terms of an exemption granted under subsection (2) above but the deposit of such waste at such a site without such an exemption shall be an offence under section 32(6) above.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause has been inspired by the Select Committee on the Environment of another place which recommended that clinical waste should be disposed of wherever possible through incineration. The effect of the amendment would be that inside three years there would have to be sufficient hospital incinerators to take care of all clinical waste. This would include used dressings, bandages, needles and scalpels. In regard to that particular category of materials, it does not take a great deal of imagination to relate the matter to the AIDS or the hepatitis B virus. Therefore, it would seem most sensible that such clinical waste should be disposed of in the most thorough form possible.
The amendment also makes allowance for the situation where an incinerator is not available due to a breakdown or because of industrial action, and so on. It provides that there should be specific landfill sites made available which will have a clinical waste placement. It also ensures that most landfill sites will not have this type of waste placement which is so potentially dangerous.
As the amendment takes its inspiration from a Select Committee in another place, I suggest that the Government should at least accept the principle behind it. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for again raising this matter which is of great concern to us all. The amendment gives me the opportunity to restate the Government's policy in relation to the disposal of clinical waste and how its safe disposal is addressed by the provisions contained within the Bill. Clinical waste may not be only offensive in nature; it can also carry with it a high risk of infection. Inadequacies in the management of clinical waste have led to a number of incidents which have aroused public anxiety and it is perfectly proper to consider how far this might require amendment to the Bill.
As regards legislation, current public anxiety is already addressed in the duty of care proposals in the Bill with the associated codes of practice (to which the National Health Service will be subjected) and in the Government's recent paper on special waste. The paper quite clearly defines clinical waste as one of the categories of waste which, if it also possesses any of the characteristic properties such as ecotoxicity, toxicity or is infectious, will be special waste and therefore not only subject to the rigorous

1541
control procedures set out in the consultation document, but also subject to the higher penalties within this Bill if it is disposed of illegally.
It is not a matter for government to stipulate whether clinical waste can or cannot be subjected to a particular disposal route, even with particular exemptions as proposed in subsections (1) and (2) of this amendment. While general advice on best management practice for disposal of a variety of wastes is issued by the department in the waste management paper series, acceptance of particular wastes at specific sites is more appropriately handled by the licensing system.
We do not consider that HMIP should issue a list of sites where landfill of clinical waste is permitted. This is clearly a matter for the waste regulation authority. Clause 61 of the Bill provides that waste regulation authorities keep a public register of all licences. It is fair and proper that such matters of public anxiety are readily available to the general public who may be quite genuinely worried about a site in I heir area.
However, the Government are worried at the apparent lack of suitable incineration capacity and at signs that clinical waste segregation and management systems might not be all that they should be. For this reason, the department is obtaining a full consultants' review of clinical waste and management systems to report back later this financial year. Further action will depend upon the contents of that report. Should that require the application of specific licence conditions or restrictions on a national basis, there are powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make appropriate determining regulations.
Lord Hylton: I have a great deal of sympathy for the spirit and intention of this amendment. However, I should like to know what it is intended should happen with clinical waste arising from ordinary doctors' surgeries. In some cases this waste could be highly infectious or dangerous. It seems undesirable that it should go either into general landfill sites or into water-borne sewage. We could hardly expect every surgery to have its own incinerator. Therefore, there seems to me to be a need for some policy on the matter.
Lord Hesketh:I must tell the noble Lord that, if he visits his local surgery, he will see that there are special bags which are used for this purpose and they are given special disposal treatment.
Lord Addington: The Minister has given me an extremely full reply and one which, I must admit, left me straggling behind him at certain points. His speed of delivery probably represents a record for him and for this Chamber. I managed to glean that the situation has been noted and is in hand. I should like to read what the Minister has said. While retaining the right to return to the point at a later stage, if necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 61 [Public registers]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 254:
Page 67, line 32, leave out ("(whether in relation to a licence so granted or not)") and insert ("in relation to that licence").
The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands, it appears that if any company has a conviction, that conviction can be recorded on the register not just of the waste regulatory authority in whose area the offence took place but in all other areas where the company may have a site. Where a large company with a number of sites has a conviction it is not appropriate that the company should be disadvantaged at another end of the country by having the conviction registered.
What will be the position of a partially owned operation where an industrial conglomerate has joined, through a subsidiary, another waste disposer so that there are now three companies involved? Will all the sites operated by all those companies, even if they are not necessarily in concert one with another on other sites, appear on the various registers? How will the registration of conviction work?
The amendment to which I seek the Committee's agreement will ensure that only a conviction relevant to the licence held at the site where the offence took place will be placed on the register in that area. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: The amendment seeks to prevent the recording of convictions other than those which relate to the licence registered with the authority. It would not be right to accept the amendment. It is the Government's intention to enable the public to have as much information available to them as possible. As in the case of judging a "fit and proper person", we are concerned about whether someone is the sort of person who should be involved with waste management anywhere. It does not seem to us reassuring to know that someone has committed an offence elsewhere but not at the particular site on the register page in question. It is relevant to his conduct as a licensee there or anywhere else. If a person has committed an offence of unlicensed illegal disposal of waste, then we would wish the public to know that, wherever the offence took place.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the reasons for the retention of the subsection as written. However, he has not told me how the transfer of information will take place. He has not told me who is the responsible person. Is it the site owner? I have to repeat my question: what happens where the site is owned by three parties one of them perhaps being separate from the other two?
Lord Reay: I am glad that my noble friend has given me a further opportunity to answer that question. The intention is that any conviction may be relevant. We want to guard against companies changing their names or associations to avoid the Bill's intentions. I can assure my noble friend that the Secretary of State will be issuing guidance to local authorities on how the provision is to be interpreted.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am sure that my noble friend will expect me to give futher consideration to what he has said. Meanwhile, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 254A.
Page 69, line 20, at end insert:
("(2A) A determination under subsection (2) above must be made within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date of the application and if the enforcing authority fails to make a determination within that period it shall be treated as having determined that the information is commercially confidential.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 254A and 256A provide for what I hope would be a remote contingency. A company which asks for its information to be kept off the register for reasons of commercial confidence should be entitled to a swift decision. These government amendments set a deadline of 14 days. There is a provision for varying the deadline by order. If an authority does not decide on an application in that time, then in default of a decision the information is to be treated as commercially confidential. These provisions mirror similar amendments which the Committee agreed to make to Clause 22 in Part I of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I recognise that these amendments are comparable to those that we have already discussed. I am still puzzled by the relative timescales involved. We are talking about a determination of confidentiality which will last four years. The amendments propose that a determination has to be made within a period of 14 days beginning with the date of the application. I assume that that means 14 calendar days, not 14 working days. I should be glad to have that confirmed or otherwise by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government. I do not know what his experience of local government is, but that means that such a determination has to be made by officers. It cannot be considered by elected members. I am not sure that that is desirable, nor am I convinced that the contrast between 14 days for the determination and four years for the life of the determination is the right balance. Can the Minister say anything on that which will help us?
Lord Reay: I should have said at the outset that in speaking to Amendment No. 254A I was at the same time speaking to Amendment No. 256A. The 14 days is 14 calendar days. I take the noble Lord's point. If the timescale proves to be unworkable, the Secretary of State will be amenable to reconsidering it and may lay an order to extend the period. The main point is that in these cases where a company has asked for information to be kept off the register for reasons of commercial confidence, we feel that it should be entitled to receive a swift decision. That is the purpose of the provision.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I find that quite unsatisfactory. I know that it is meant well, but to tell us that the Government propose to put on to the face of the Bill—not in regulations—a requirement for a determination to be made in 14 days, and then for the noble Lord on behalf of the Government to say that if it proves to be unworkable, the Secretary of State will take it back, is not the way to propose legislation.
The Minister has nothing to lose. On this occasion I recommend him to take the amendment back and bring it forward if necessary at Report stage. He should recognise that we know all that is necessary to know. We know about the contrast between 14 days for the determination and four years for the life of the determination. We know that it means in practice that such a decision will always be taken by officers. There will be no intervention by elected members. What else is there to learn? On this occasion I ask the Minister to be a little flexible, take the amendment back and let us reconsider it at Report stage.
Lord Reay: I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. I shall consider what he said. If he wishes to put down a further amendment, we shall expect to see it at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 69, line 48, at end insert ("save that any hearing in accordance with subsection 2(c) of that section shall in all cases be held in private.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to protect commercially confidential information. If a hearing were to occur under this subsection to discuss the potentially confidential nature of certain information, it should obviously not be held in public. As the intention of the clause is to protect commercially confidential information, a public hearing would be totally inappropriate.
I have taken full regard of what my noble friend the Minister had to say the other evening when we were discussing Amendment No. 123 which concerned the issue of individual or commercial confidentiality being swept aside in favour of the greater national need. I accepted the viewpoint that was put forward at that time. However, in this case we are not talking about anything of that nature. We are talking about exclusions from registers. It seems to me only reasonable therefore that any hearing should be held in private. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: This amendment would require private hearings for appeals against furnishing information on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Almost all appeals are already determined by written evidence together with site inspections. Hearings are rare. The Secretary of State has discretion as to how appeals are determined. I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend will not be so perverse as to hold a public hearing of information that is commercially confidential. I believe the point that is being made is that in some cases appeals will not only be concerned with commercial

1545
confidentiality. There is not in our view, however, any need to bind the hands of my right honourable friend by statute.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: There is no question of binding the hands of the Secretary of State by statute. It is a matter of what is fair, reasonable and proper. In my judgment it is not good enough to say that almost all of these matters are dealt with privately. There are the exceptions. Even though an exclusion may encompass matters other than confidential matters, there may have to be two interrelated inquiries.
I do not believe that the Minister's answer will give much comfort to those who seek commercial confidentiality. In the light of the answer of my noble friend, I shall wish to consult further with those people who feel that they may be materially affected by the provision. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 256 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 256A:
Page 70, line 15, at end insert:
("(The Secretary of State may, by order, substitute for the period for the time being specified in subsection (2A) above such other period as he considers appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]
Clauses 66 to 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Meaning of "waste" and household, commercial and industrial waste]:
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 257A:
Page 78, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may make regulations to prescribe substances that are or are not to be defined as wastes or circumstances which may or may not make a substance a waste.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is really a piece of parliamentary convenience. The European Commission recently drafted a definition of waste in the proposed Council directive amending the current directive on waste. Although it is not agreed at this point, it is clear that a single EC definition of waste is needed for the effective control of trans-frontier waste shipments, especially in the light of 1992 and the single market. The insertion of this proposed subsection would mean that changes to primary legislation are not required when such a definition is finally agreed—if it is agreed—by the Council of Ministers. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment tackles the difficult question of the definition of waste. It is a difficult area to define; one man's waste is another's raw material. When does an article that one person wishes to discard become something that another person wants? It might be thought that it is at
1546
the very moment when the second person takes possession of it, and in most cases that will be right, but there are other cases where the article or material is of no interest to the second person without some form of processing. The processing will take away some elements of the article which even the second person does not want. Those elements will remain waste, though in our view those elements that he wishes to keep will generally cease to be waste from the time that they are so separated.
That may seem to be a very complicated and perhaps over-elaborate way of deciding when a material is a waste product. I assure the Committee that it is not; for the crucial point about this whole matter is that the material is being processed, and during processing it can pose a serious risk to the environment. That is one reason why, in our view, it is certainly necessary to include in the definition of waste, and hence in the definition of processes that need to be licensed, the management of material that is being recycled.
Much of the scrap going into scrapyards is not simply scrap metal. The metal is often in the form of equipment which must be broken up to extract the metal, but the equipment will also contain oils, solvents, plastics, acids and a whole host of other substances which can be highly polluting if they are not properly controlled. The Committee will not, I am sure, need convincing that the breaking process must be properly controlled to avoid pollution.
Another reason for including recyclable waste in the definition of waste is that waste must be subject to the controls we have been discussing in Committee. Consider the wide range of materials that can be recycled. Does the Committee want to see this range of waste exempted from the duty of care and pollution control simply because it could, under some conceivable circumstances, be recycled? I very much doubt it.
However, I can say that where it is clear that recycling operations do not pose a threat to the environment, there is a mechanism for exempting them from licensing, and indeed we already do so. The Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988 exempt, for instance, the processes involved in the recycling of waste paper and rags. We do not wish to impose any unnecessary obstacles to recycling, and we shall always consider very carefully whether a recycling process can be exempted. However, I have to say that we gave careful consideration to the exemption of scrapyards at the time the regulations were made. HMIP advised that the processes undertaken at scrapyards could pose a risk to the environment and we therefore were not able to offer such an exemption. However, I am very pleased to note that the President of the British Scrap Federation is reported in Materials Reclamation Weekly in December as saying that none of the federation's members has reported any difficulties in obtaining a licence. If any difficulties do arise, the appeal mechanism is there to resolve them.
I do not believe that the definitions of waste that we have in the Bill can be improved upon through regulations as suggested by my honourable friend the Member for Hornchuch. The definitions we have in the Bill have been carried forward from the

1547
Control of Pollution Act, and in that Act they have served us well. By placing the emphasis on the attitude of the person who produces the material and his behaviour towards it, the definition allows the courts to examine each case individually. There is now a significant amount of case law on which to base our interpretation. In no case has the definition been interpreted by the courts in a way which causes us anxiety.
It would be impossible to set out in regulations which substances are waste. Substances of themselves are not waste. They become waste only when they are unwanted, as the definition in the Bill states. Neither would it be possible to set out all the different circumstances that could possibly occur in which any one substance would or would not be a waste product. We can, and we have, set out our interpretation of the meaning of the definition of waste using the decisions of the courts to guide us. That guidance can be found in Annex 2 of Circular 13/88, which is the circular accompanying the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988. I urge anyone who is unsure whether the materials or articles they are dealing with are waste to consult that circular.
Lord Layton: Another wonderful answer from the Minister! However, it did not really address the problem on which I sought an answer; namely, what will happen in 1992 when there are totally different definitions of waste throughout the EC? When that time comes and the boundaries are down, there has to be a definition of waste. As the Minister said, one person's waste is another's raw material.
There is a problem with this definition. How shall we deal with the definitions that come from the Germans, the French, the Belgians and so on? If they say, "This is not waste. We are recycling something. Therefore so far as we are concerned it is a recycled material. It is not toxic waste; neither is it special waste. It does not come under your definition of controlled waste. Why don't you want it?" Do we then reply, "I am sorry, but your definition does not suit our definition. We cannot have it"?
At some point there has to be a common definition of waste throughout the EC. This amendment was intended to go some way to help the Government at some point to put that definition into legislation so that there would be a degree of understanding within the EC of what was intended. I should like to hear the Minister's observations on that point.
Lord Hesketh: The definitions in the Bill are entirely compatible with the EC directives. That being the case, and if all others follow the EC directives, a satisfactory result should ensue.
Lord Layton: That is provided that the new definition is not different. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 257B:
Page 79, line 2, leave out from first ("any") to end of line 6 and insert ("of the following premises—

(a) any factory (within the meaning of the Factories Act 1961);

(b) any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision to the public of transport services by land, water or air;

(c) any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the supply to the public of gas, water or electricity or the provision of sewerage services; or

(d) any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision to the public of postal or telecommunications services.").

The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is an open invitation. When the Minister says that a substantial amendment of this kind is a drafting amendment. I have to question him on what the drafting means. The amendment in four different parts defines premises reasonably precisely. Does the definition include factory farming?
Lord Hesketh: I suggest that factory farming is probably a colloquialism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is very real and a real producer of waste, as the Minister will recognise. We have debated this matter before. There is such a thing as agricultural waste arising from agricultural premises. There is a substantial possibility of very dangerous waste being exempted as agricultural waste arising from agricultural premises.
I shall ask the question in another way. Is there any aspect of waste from agricultural premises which is included in this amendment?
Lord Hesketh: I am not sure that the noble Lord will be entirely satisfied with my answer. It will be a kind of reverse negative: there were exemptions in an earlier part of the Bill and that which would be considered as waste in many areas, in farming would probably be considered beneficial. As a typical example, chicken muck resulting from intensive farming of chickens which is put back on to the land is seen in some quarters as for the public good in organic terms.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am reluctant to pursue this discussion in this way. It arises because the Minister fails to answer my question. We should not be carrying on this duologue if I had been given a straight answer to my original question.
Is it not the case that a substantial amount of waste arising from agricultural premises is by no means as beneficial as chicken muck? I repeat my question: is there waste arising from agricultural premises which is covered by this amendment?
Lord Hesketh: The advice which I received is very similar to the advice that I have just given to the noble Lord; namely, that if the processes fall within the Factories Act, they come under the industrial part of the amendment as referred to earlier.
Lord Ross of Newport: That Act was passed in 1961. Factory farming took off in the 1960s and 1970s. I wonder whether the point which the noble Lord has raised is a matter which we ought to look at again.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer. It appears that the amendment has been drafted without regard to the events of the last 29 years. This is perhaps a matter to which we shall return at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257C not moved.]
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Transition from Control of Pollution Act to this Part]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 30, line 6, leave out ("relevant").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 258A. Amendment No. 258 is a minor drafting amendment to delete the word "relevant". I believe that that is what is known in the trade as a missed consequential; that is, the word "relevant" was removed from several other places as a consequence of an amendment passed and in error was left in here.
Amendment No. 258A is one which I am sure will be welcomed by the Committee because it allows existing disposal authorities to continue to recycle waste directly themselves until their disposal assets are vested in a LAWDC. After the vesting of assets disposal authorities will of course continue to be able to arrange for waste to be recycled by contractors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 258A:
Page 80, line 30, at end insert:
("(5) As respects any existing disposal authority, until the date which is, under subsection (3)(a) above, the date until which the restriction imposed by section 49(1) of this Act is disapplied:—

(a) the powers conferred on a waste disposal authority by section 52(2)(a) and (b) of this Act as respects the recycling of waste and the use of waste to produce heat or electricity shall be treated as powers which the authority may exercise itself; and

(b) the power conferred on a waste disposal authority by section 46(4) of this Act to object to a waste collection authority having waste recycled where the disposal authority has made arrangements with a waste disposal contractor for the contractor to recycle the waste shall be available to the waste disposal authority where it itself has the waste recycled.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Power to prohibit or restrict the importation, use, supply or storage of injurious substances or articles]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 128, line 6, leave out ("importation") and insert ("import").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 262, 263, 264 to 266, 337, 340A and 403. My noble friend Lord Hampton apologises that he cannot be here to move this amendment but has asked me to do so on his behalf. As the Committee may know, he is a stickler for simple English and I support the aim of these amendments. They are all virtually the same. They seek to simplify the language of the Bill without changing its meaning in any way. The words "importation" and "exportation" are unnecessarily long and in our view should be replaced by "import" and "export".
The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that as nouns they are interchangeable, so why do the Government choose this pompous language? There is a steady deterioration in the general use of language which needs to be resisted. Even in this Chamber the word "argumentation" is used instead of "argument" or "arguments" and "documentation" instead of "document". We refer to "transportation" when speaking of transport problems on the roads or railways. "Transportation" used to mean sending people off to Austrialia. The list is endless and somewhat depressing. "Dual carriageway" is a ridiculous description of what can be more simply described as a double road. In a slightly different context I should say that my pet hate is the phrase "going to go". Why can one not say that one is "going"? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that "import" and "export" read much better than the current text of the Bill which refers to "importation" and "exportation". However I regret that I cannot accept these amendments. The use of importation and exportation is necessary for historical reasons. The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which has effect for the purposes of the Customs and Excise Acts and other enactments, refers to the importation and exportation of goods. So, for example, the timing of importation is deemed to be when, in the case of goods brought by sea, the ship bringing them comes within the limits of a port. The Act also refers to "exportation" rather than "export". I am advised that were we to refer to "import" and "export" in these clauses we would run the risk of casting doubt as to whether we meant the same thing as "importation" and "exportation" and therefore break the link with Customs and Excise legislation. We cannot afford to do that. Therefore, somewhat against my limited linguistic preferences, I ask the noble Lord not to press these amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: I wish that my noble friend Lord Hampton had been present to hear that response. I believe that the Minister is on my side and I congratulate him on some of his responses in the debate. It is a tragedy that we must follow tradition. Obviously, I shall not divide the
1552
Committee but I hope that some of the advisers in the box will take an interest in what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Loud Ross of Newport Loud Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 259A:
Page 128, line 14, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under subsection (1) above to prohibit the importation of any waste for direct landfill within the area of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the increasingly scarce facilities are retained for waste produced within the UK and are not available for the direct disposal of imported waste. The amendment is intended to prevent the importing of waste straight to landfill sites in the UK.
The import of waste for treatment is, arguably, a legitimate trade, although one can take a different view on that matter. If such an argument is to be accepted, there must be a tighter definition of what constitutes treatment and a knowledge of whether facilities exist for the handling of such waste together with sufficient capacity.
I call in aid the report on hazardous waste disposal produced by the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House. It states:
"The Government accept international trade in waste disposal services for specialist treatment and incineration provided this is proper y controlled and monitored but consider that transfrontier movement directly to landfill should be exceptional and only when permitted by the importing country".
In other words, the United Kingdom.
In its report on toxic waste the House of Commons Environment Committee stated:
"We are concerned that the prospect of the importation of large quantities of putrescible domestic waste",
that is, smelly waste,
"with no guarantee of the content, no prospects of returning them to source and no ability to enforce the duty of care … The import of waste for direct landfill, whether or not for co-disposal, should not be permitted under any circumstances".
I now seek to write that provision into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We on these Benches fully support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will not produce technical arguments against it. I believe that the British public strongly object to waste from other countries—whether noxious, toxic, dangerous or hazardous—finding a home inside the British Isles.
The amendment is straightforward. We do not believe that any waste from abroad should go directly to a landfill site within the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Minister will have many illustrations of ships from other countries which have travelled around the world in an attempt to unload their obnoxious materials.
It is a good, sensible amendment. Unless the Government have powerful reasons unrelated to money, I hope that they will demonstrate their interest in the problem and accept the amendment.
Lord Layton: The amendment makes the greatest sense in calling for the banning of direct landfill,
1554
because landfill sites in this country are an ever decreasing facility. If we import waste as well as trying to find facilities for our own landfill uses during the next few years we shall run out of appropriate sites a great deal more quickly. We cannot afford to do so and therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I must point out that the clause under consideration deals with the importation, use, supply or storage of injurious substances or articles and does not deal with wastes. That is the subject of the following clause, Clause 131. Nevertheless, I shall try to deal with the points made in relation to that clause and to explain the Government's policy on trade in waste, which will set the scene for several of the debates on later amendments.
Clause 131 provides very wide-ranging powers for the Secretary of State to prohibit or restrict the importation or exportation of wastes. The powers that it provides shall be exercised in order to prevent the risk of pollution or harm to human health, or in order to conserve disposal resources.
It is the Government's intention that there shall be a notification system for all wastes and that this system shall closely resemble that currently in force for toxic and dangerous wastes under the EC Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Wastes Directive. This would require that waste regulation authorities shall be notified of any intended shipment of waste to this country and they may then object to the shipment taking place if it is likely to cause pollution or threaten the availability of disposal resources for United Kingdom needs.
The implementation of this clause will in part depend on negotiations within the European Community. Noble Lords will recognise that, particularly in matters involving the movement of materials between member states, there are obligations under the Treaty of Rome. Nevertheless I am happy to report that the United Kingdom's initiative in highlighting the need for more stringent controls over waste movements has been generally welcomed in the Community. In fact at the last Environmental Council in June, the Council approved the text of a new framework directive on waste disposal which embodies the principle of each member state being self-sufficient in its waste disposal capability wherever possible. That is an important landmark for the United Kingdom as regards achieving our objective for developed industrial countries to be self-sufficient in waste disposal facilities.
We are also greatly encouraged by developments in the implementation of the Basle Convention through regulation of the EC, which will apply the provisions of the convention directly to the legislation of member countries without the need for domestic legislation. These developments suggest that the Commission's proposals will apply the convention to the movements of all wastes. If this does indeed come to pass, many of the provisions of Clause 131 will have been implemented.

1555
Perhaps I may say a word on our intentions regarding the control of the export of waste. We do intend that these controls shall be every bit as tough as those on imports. At present I must say that the United Kingdom does not export waste to any significant degree. There may be valid reasons for such exports in the future, but they will have to pass very stringent tests. In particular, the Secretary of State will wish to be assured, before granting any consent for the export of wastes, that the country to which the waste is to be sent possesses the technology necessary to deal with it and, moreover, that the government of that country is fully aware of and consents to the import. We are of course particularly concerned that there shall be no deceit practised on the countries of the developing world in the matter of the disposal of wastes from industrialised countries.
I hope this preamble in explaining the Government's intentions on the importaton and exportation of waste will set the scene for the debates on this and following amendments. The Government's policy has been quite clearly stated, not least to the Science and Technology Committee of this House by a former Secretary of State that there would have to be very compelling reasons indeed for the granting of any consent for the importation of wastes into this country for direct landfill. The precise mechanisms to achieve this effect cannot be introduced until regulations are enacted under Clause 131 and I have explained to your Lordships the constraints within the Community that prevent immediate implementation through words on the face of the Bill.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ross, will accept my assurances that we are at one on this matter and that the necessary regulation will be laid as soon as negotiations can be completed with other member states. I hope therefore that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I take from that reply, first, that the amendment may be defective in that it refers to the wrong clause in the Bill. I accept that criticism. I shall of course study what the Minister has said, as also will local authorities. I cannot understand why this cannot be written into the Bill. When I was in Parliament I represented an island which had run out of landfill sites and we were thinking of having to export our wastes to somewhere in Oxfordshire. However, we put in some equipment which is dealing with the incineration and total regurgitation of all our waste. I do not know whether it has been acceptable, or successful, or not. However, I feel it would be much simpler if we actually said that we will ban imported waste from landfill sites. I understand the Government are saying that in all probability they will ban it, but that is not written into the Bill. I shall study what the Minister has said, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 128, line 23, leave out second ("or").
The noble Earl said: I am rising to speak to Amendments Nos. 260 and 261. In this part of the Clause it states that:
"Regulations under this section may—
(a) confer on the Secretary of State power to direct that any substance … whose use … is prohibited or restricted is to be treated as waste …"—
and I am suggesting controlled waste and special waste. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to many places in which the drafting of the Bill may be improved. However, on this occasion I must respectfully point out that the drafting of the clause is indeed correct.
The clause gives the Secretary of State powers to restrict or prohibit the use of injurious substances or articles. Subsection (3) then allows him to declare that those substances shall be treated as wastes and that they shall be disposed of. That power is necessary in order to ensure that such injurious substances are not stored indefinitely where such storage presents a hazard.
In that respect, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to declare that the substances or articles are waste and to be able to direct that they be disposed of. The subsection allows the Secretary of State to declare not only that the substances or articles shall be treated as controlled waste, but also that they may be treated as waste per se. That allows the Secretary of State to exercise his powers in relation to substances which would not normally fall within the definition of controlled waste; in other words, agricultural materials or materials from mines and quarries.
However, controlled waste includes special waste. Special waste is merely a subset of controlled waste as defined in Clause 72(9) which reads:
" 'Special waste' means controlled waste as respects which regulations are in force under section 59 above".
Clause 59 defines special waste as controlled waste of any kind which is, or may be, dangerous or difficult to dispose of.
I hope that that explanation satisfies my noble friend on the two points that he has raised.
The Earl of Balfour: I shall need to read carefully what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Lord Layton Lord Layton moved Amendment No. 261A:
Page 128, line 33, at end insert:
("(bb) confer on the Secretary of State power, where a substance or article has been imported, landed or unloaded and differs substantially from the analysis or samples originally supplied by the generator or consignor, to require that the generator or consignor take back the substance or article at his own expense; a condition of the waste disposal licence being that all licensed facilities shall incorporate such a provision into the contract for waste disposal;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State power to send back substances which should not have come here because they have been contaminated accidentally or through

1557
poor analysis, bad practice or for whatever reason.
Basically, the amendment states that if a person who has accidentally received something in this country finds out that it is not what he was told it would be, the Secretary of State has the power to send it back at the consignor's or generator's expense. However, how will you get him to take it back? That is the reason for the second part of the amendment which proposes that the duty should be written into the contract. If it is put on the face of the Bill as the amendment proposes, the contract then has the backing of the Secretary of State.
There was an incident last year in which such a power would have been of great help and would have saved the person who received the contaminated waste many hundreds of thousands of pounds when he was forced to deal with it. It would have solved the problem that arose for several waste disposal authorities in dealing with strikes and containing the contaminated waste. It would have been consigned back to where it had come from with people forced to pay because the obligation had been written into their contract in the first place. It is only by including the obligation as a condition of the licence that you can Force it to work. That is why I included the second part of the amendment. Obviously, the Secretary of State is not in a position to tell someone from a foreign country to take something back unless it is possible within the courts of that country to take him through litigation and have a strong case because of the original contract.
The reason for the amendment is to save the innocent party at this end the problems that can easily arise by contamination and through someone choosing to offload something that he cannot deal with himself by means of a false sample or analysis. However, if the analysis at this end proves to be different, the consignment should be sent back. The amendment forces on to the consignor at the other end the condition that he must first have had an analysis carried out. That provision does not apply at the moment. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My noble friend Lord Layton raises an important point in this amendment. Unfortunately, as sometimes has happened at sea, what is on the bill of lading is not necessarily what is inside the cases. I apologise for not being familiar with the latest merchant navy legislation, but I should briefly like to relate something which happened to me. We loaded around 56 cases of what we believed from the bill of lading to be tomato ketchup. It turned out to be butter. By the time we had sailed through the Red Sea there was nothing to discharge.
Sometimes a merchant navy officer takes on face value what he is receiving and it may turn out to be something competely different. Under those circumstances perhaps something could be written into the legislation to protect him.
Lord Hesketh: Merely for the sake of clarity I should like to point out that again we have an amendment put down for Clause 130 which rightly
1558
belongs in the debate on Clause 131 on restrictions on trade in waste itself. I understand the noble Lord's concern that any system set up to control movement of waste should be watertight. If we require that waste be accurately described before we agree to take it for disposal there should be some means of redress if when it arrives on our shores we find that it does not comply with the description that we have previously been given. That is the aim of the noble Lord's amendment. I should like to explain that under the provisions of the Basle Convention and those of Clause 131 we already have that matter fully covered.
Under the provisions of the Basle Convention, which the UK signed in October 1989, a shipment that does not conform in a material way with the pre-notification document is deemed to be illegal traffic. The state of export is under a duty to ensure that the waste in question is taken back by the consignor or generator where they are responsible. The convention applies to hazardous waste, municipal waste and ash from municipal incinerators.
The convention is to be implemented throughout the European Community by way of an EC regulation. Since EC regulations apply their provisions directly into the law of each member state, there will be no delay in implementation in any country and there will be no danger of different interpretations being translated into national laws by individual member states.
The regulation is not yet drafted but it is likely that the Commission will extend the provisions to all waste. The regulation is likely to require that there must be contracts between the consignor and consignee before a shipment can be agreed to by the relevant authority and that this contract will include a condition that the consignor will take back any shipments that do not conform with the description on the notification document. The return of shipments to another country must of course be the subject of international agreement because a country of import cannot prescribe what a person in a country of export must do.
The provisions of the Basle Convention accord very closely with the provisions that we have set down in Clause 131 on trade in waste. Subsection (5)(b) allows the Secretary of State to restrict or prohibit the movement of wastes subject to conditions, and it is the Government's intention that any regulations made under this clause would contain similar requirements to those of the Basle Convention which I have described. However, if the ratification of the convention by the European Community continues to make rapid progress it may well be that such regulations under that particular clause will not be necessary.
I hope that the noble Lord will be assured that there is no loophole in the Bill concerning the return of waste that is not as described. Indeed we already have provision to cover the matter twice—first in the EC regulation implementing the Basle Convention and, secondly, in the provisions of our own Clause 131.
Lord Layton: The problem with that reply is that not every country signed the Basle Convention. I do not believe that it was signed by Russia, Japan or the United States. If someone from the United States sends something to this country, the Basle Convention does not apply. That is one of the objects of tabling the amendment, so that those countries which are not part of the convention are forced to accept back the goods that they sent in a contaminated state.
The Minister rightly pointed out that an importing country cannot force an exporting country to do anything. That is why the second part of the subsection to the clause was inserted, so that the waste disposal licence includes the provision in the contract. Under a contract the consignor can be required to accept the return of the goods. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about dealing with the American situation.
Lord Hesketh: The Basle Convention prohibits trade between non-signatories except through bilateral arrangements. We would require these points to be included in any bilateral arrangement. As regards the specific example of the United States I shall have to write to my noble friend.
Lord Layton: I shall consider this matter for a later date. I wait to hear from the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 [Power to prohibit or restrict the importation or exportation of waste]:
[Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 not moved.]
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby moved Amendment No. 263A:
Page 130, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under subsection (1) above to prohibit the export of technological services or equipment which are likely to cause, or are capable of causing, pollution within another country at a level which would, if it were caused within those parts of the United Kingdom to which Part I above applies, represent a contravention of an authorisation under that Part.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that the purpose of this amendment is perfectly simple and I hope non-controversial. I doubt whether there will be any argument over the fact that it is wrong for industries which cannot operate lawfully within the pollution control laws of the developed countries simply to export those industries particularly to less-developed countries where restrictions are less tight and where the power and mechanism of control is inevitably weaker.
In 1985 the OECD saw this problem. At that time it urged countries not to export development and investment projects which produced important quantities of toxic waste. That was five years ago. It is quite apparent that on environmental issues pollution does not recognise national boundaries. Therefore, it is not only a moral issue but also a matter of self-interest that standards should not be
1560
undermined simply by exporting dangerous technology.
The issue of health also comes within this amendment. The best example is the tragedy at Bhopal, which is symptomatic of this kind of problem involving the export of industries which are dangerous to third world countries. One can include such aspects as chemical-making technologies which can also be used or abused for dangerous military purposes.
I refer also to the amount of pharmaceutical manufacturing which takes place in Latin America to avoid the laws of the United States. I have considerable experience of the export of baby milk from this and other industrial countries to Africa without there being the necessary hygiene infrastructure.
The amendment is intended to empower the Secretary of State to deal with the matters to which I have referred. In the past the Government have made certain provisions to forbid the export of advanced technology to the Soviet Union. There was also the embargo on Rhodesia at the time of UDI. In addition there are the current mandatory sanctions on South Africa. It would not set a precedent. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment so that the export to other countries, particularly third world countries, of dangerous technology, services and equipment that would not be allowed in this country is specifically prevented. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: On these Benches we support the amendment so well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. We see it as an issue of morality. One has to make a judgment. I am quite certain that on the debit side someone may say that it is not in certain interests. I am not concerned about those interests. I am concerned about the interests of mankind and humanity, especially mankind and humanity in the third world or the less developed countries. Whatever the motive—and at the end of the day the motive will be profit—we do not want to see our less well-off brethren in other parts of the world suffering because someone is making a fast buck.
This is a good opportunity for the Government to make a statement—a declaration—and to be seen to be doing something. I do not mean a "statement" in parliamentary terms. The Minister is wondering why the Government should make a statement. I believe that by accepting the amendment they will be making a statement. They will be telling the whole world that we are prepared to pass legislation which on the margin may not be to our advantage but may be to the enormous advantage of millions of people who suffer by having to accept this terrible situation. We support the amendment.
Lord Reay: I listened carefully to what the noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Graham of Edmonton, said but I do not think it would be right for the Government to accept the amendment. I say that for two reasons. First, I do not think it would do anything to lessen pollution in other countries; indeed it might only serve to increase it. Secondly,

1561
I am not convinced that we should dictate to other countries whether a piece of environmental equipment is good or bad for them. Looking at it the other way round, we would certainly not be amused if HMIP wished to require a particular piece of equipment for a process prescribed for integrated pollution control, only for the government of the country of origin to refuse an export licence.
Part I authorisations will rely on the use of the best available technology not entailing excessive cost. The effect of the amendment would be to apply the standards of this country, which will be high, to all other countries of the world. This is catching them between the devil and the deep blue sea. The devil may be the anachronistic equipment that is being used now. The deep blue sea may be the most modern, technologically complex piece of equipment which has just been invented. The money would not be there to afford it in some countries.
Some Members of the Committee, particularly those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, may remember the work of E. F. Schumacher, who argued that the appropriate technology for the developing world was not the most advanced, the large and the complex; rather, it should be intermediate, smaller scale technology. It is the export of precisely that kind of technology that the amendment would hit the hardest.
What the amendment would mean in practical terms is that if a government of a foreign country wished to import a piece of equipment that was better than that currently being used in that country, but not as good as that required in Britain, we could not export it. If the United Kingdom was the sole supplier of the equipment in question we would, in effect, be forcing the other country to use its existing old-fashioned, more polluting technology. The amendment is therefore as likely to increase pollution in other countries as to reduce it. That cannot be right. If the United Kingdom was not the sole supplier the amendment would serve no practical purpose as the importing country would turn elsewhere for its supply of the technology it wanted. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore not press his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I do not know what the Liberal Benches have to say about the work of Schumacher but I worked with him and I cannot understand how, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, the noble Lord can drag in his name on this amendment. It is totally irrelevant. I am sure that if Schumacher were here he would support the amendment.
The noble Lord has said nothing that answers the amendment. He asserts that the amendment could cause extra pollution but gives no reasons. As regards the export of high technology, surely the size of the technology has nothing to do with the amendment. The noble Lord said that we would be arrogating to ourselves the right of determining what is and what is not polluting. That is not so; this is an objective view. One knows whether technology and machines will be capable of polluting. We determine that within our law. It is also determined internationally.
1562
The Government's answer exposes the hollowness of their claim that, with the Bill, they are protecting the environment.
The noble Lord must surely know what has been and is going on all over the world—the export of technology, machines and substances to the detriment of the people of the third world, to the world as a whole and to all mankind, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. We must act now in our own self-interest, in the interests of every living being and of generations to come.
It is too late to divide the Committee but I hope that the Government will look at the amendment again, that they will read it in the sense in which it is written, and that they will come back on Report with a more constructive and positive answer than the complete negativeness we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 263B:
Page 130, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section, any material which is dangerous, whether or not recyclable, shall fall within the definition of waste to which subsection (1) above applies.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment because it is difficult to find the right wording to deal with the problem it addresses. If I describe an example of what we refer to, the Government will recognise the nature of the problem and will be sympathetic, I hope, to the idea of an amendment even if we do not have the right words.
The Minister may know that I am referring to what is called the "Wath" incident. This occurred when an American company shipped waste material to a south Yorkshire company called Wath Recycling, in Wath upon Dearne, near Rotherham. The waste material was not sent direct from the American company but through a broker. It was described as metallic oxides, which could be reclaimed. When it arrived in Yorkshire it was discovered that it was contaminated with xylene and furans—organic compounds which are dangerous in that they could be carcinogenic. As a result of that discovery, it was beyond the capacity of the company, Wath Recycling, to deal with it and, in any event, it did not have a licence to deal with such material.
Therefore, this dangerous material was left for a considerable time in a siding in Leeds. The British Rail staff who worked there refused to handle it. This meant that some of it was left in a siding in Leeds and some of it was left on the ground in the premises of Wath Recycling. This is an ongoing situation, as Private Eye would describe it; in other words, it is still happening. The material is still there, although it has been put into drums in order to minimise further pollution.
There has been legal action in order to try to get the material returned to the producer in the United States; but I understand that British courts are not able to handle the case—presumably because the law is defective in that way—and it is now to be heard

1563
in the American courts. In the meantime, there is no provision in United Kingdom law which will enable the material to be safely dealt with. It cannot be dealt with by the people who have it on their premises because they do not have a licence for it and there is no one else who is willing, or who can be required, to take responsibility for the material.
Therefore, by the simple fact that the material was incorrectly described—it was described as being "recyclable"—it got round the controls which are supposed to exist in order to deal with waste. It may well be that Clause 131, which is very complex, ought to cover the situation. However, that still remains dependent upon the requirement that the material has been defined as waste. If it comes into the country as being recyclable material which is not waste, I put it to the Government—and this is why I look keenly to their response—that there is a risk that Clause 131 will not apply. Indeed, if Clause 130 can deal with the matter, there is a serious question as to whether Clause 131 is necessary.
I do not particularly commend the wording of the amendment. I do not think that we have yet found a way of dealing with this quite difficult problem, where there is a complex chain of ownership and misrepresentation about the nature of the material. However, I urge the Government to share with Members of the Committee the anxiety which they must feel, and which must have been expressed to them, about the inadequacy of British law to deal with the Wath case and to deal with the chemicals which are still in Yorkshire to this very day. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: We have debated several times over the past few days the Government's views on the status of recyclable waste. In response to amendments seeking to remove recyclable waste from controls, I made clear that the Government's first responsibility in this area is the protection of the environment. Since it is quite clear the processing of recyclable waste can pose as much an environmental risk as its disposal, we have given our assurances that there can be no exclusions from the definition of waste itself. The definitions in the Bill both in Part II and in this clause do not exclude recyclable material from the definition of waste. Therefore, we believe that there is no need for this amendment.
I have said that there is provision in the Bill for the exemption from certain controls of genuinely innocuous activities, and we are certainly prepared to look at any case that the industry wishes to put forward. But I repeat my assurance that in principle the controls must cover recyclable waste. We are aware that to fail to do so could provide a loophole for those who are either not as careful as they should be about the descriptions of the waste that they transport, or those who are perhaps downright evasive of controls.
As I mentioned earlier, the European Commission is preparing the text of regulations to implement the Basle Convention, to which I shall return later. The convention contains provision for simplified procedures for the movement of recyclable materials
1564
and the Commission is looking at how that might be translated into the provisions of the regulation. In the negotiations on that regulation the UK will be mindful of the particular need to avoid unnecessary obstacles to the free movement of recyclable waste.
That is, I am sure, an objective we share since we all wish to see much more recycling of waste; but we must be sure that any simplified procedures to not open a gate to abuse or even to genuine mistakes which can have unfortunate effects on those left holding material which is not as it was described and cannot be reclaimed because of its contamination, as the noble Lord pointed out.
The case of recyclable material brought into this country under the simplified procedures of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations is a well publicised case of good intentions in speeding the trade in recycling going wrong. As has been said, although imported into this country as recyclable metal, on arrival it was found to be heavily contaminated and could not be recycled as intended. We do not want to see that situation recurring, and it is for those reasons that we must be vigilant to ensure that the search for speedy procedures for the movement of recyclables does not provide this kind of loophole.
The Government have been involved in the negotiations on the Wath material with all the relevant parties in the UK and the USA. Those negotiations are not proceeding as fast as we would like, but in principle there is no obstacle to the return of the waste to the USA for disposal. The waste concerned has been drummed, as the noble Lord pointed out, under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive and HMIP.
The contention here reverts to the point made by my noble friend Lord Layton on an earlier amendment in respect of the Basle Convention, of which the United States is a signatory but not a ratifier. Where there is a signatory but no ratification—one has also the European position—the Basle Convention prohibits the ratifiers, of which we are one, trading with non-ratifiers except under bilateral agreements—this is important—with equivalent conditions, so that the convention's requirements are not circumvented. My noble friend Lord Layton earlier made the point that there is effectively a transitional period. He asked what will happen if something falls through the net. That is the relationship between ratifiers and non-ratifiers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the Minister will not object if I describe that reply as being worthy in principle and pointing in the right direction but unsatisfactory in outcome. He acknowledges that the material in Wath is still there. When he says that it can in principle be returned to the United states, he is in fact saying that it is not being returned to the United States and that there is no genuine prospect of it being returned to the United States because of its status as a signatory and not a ratifier of the Basle Convention.
The Minister will have to agree that the outlook is not good. The question then arises: if we all

1565
have the same laudable objectives of preventing any loopholes in the law relating to the import and export of hazardous waste, what will we do with it? When talking about Amendment No. 259A, the Minister referred to the need for the pre-notification of hazardous waste movements. That is all very well as far as it goes. No one objects to that. But surely we should go one step further: where there is any reason to suppose that a risk might arise—for example, the original producer of the waste is unknown or has been known to be unsatisfactory—there should be some sampling procedure. Can the Minister say, first, whether he would support such a move, which would be a protection that would go further than the pre-notification, and, if so, whether he will consider with his right honourable friends whether that is a proposal which might be considered, if not for inclusion in the Bill, as a subject for further regulation?
Lord Hesketh: I think that the noble Lord will appreciate that we are moving into a slightly difficult transitional period. There is an EC overlay to all this. Effectively there are three levels: the Bill before your Lordships' Committee, the Basle Convention and the example of a non-ratifying signatory, and EC regulations, which may not make UK regulations redundant but may overtake them. That is the difficulty about saying that we wish to have a UK initiative, which is what I believe the noble Lord suggests. That is different from what is proposed on a broader scale.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not going as far as that. I simply ask the Minister to agree with me that on the face of it the requirement for sampling would be a protection which the requirement for pre-notification does not provide. Without any commitment to what any of his right honourable or honourable friends might think, I ask the noble Lord to agree to recommend that there should be a British Government contribution to the negotiations at European Basle Convention and national level.
Lord Hesketh: There would be nothing wrong in drawing attention to what the noble Lord has to say in order to put in that equation. The points he has made this evening on that are relevant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 264 to 266 not moved.]
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 266A:
Page 131, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not permit the import of any special wastes into the United Kingdom unless it has been demonstrated that the country of origin of such wastes has no suitable facilities for the safe disposal of such wastes.").
The noble Lord said: During 1989, some 41,000 tonnes of hazardous wastes were imported into England and Wales. The major sources of these imports were Western Europe and North America; that is the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, the
1566
United States, Sweden, Italy, Eire and Canada. Surely all these countries should have sufficient resources to tackle their own waste. The concern is that this volume of waste coming into England and Wales from wealthy industrialised countries is adding to landfill problems and to unwelcome incineration activity. Moreover, there are clear dangers associated with the transportation of such wastes over large distances.
The principle that needs to be established is that special wastes should only be imported from countries which do not have the necessary technical capability or resources to dispose of or treat the waste in a proper and safe manner. This would leave the route open to poorer developing countries such as the Philippines, the major third world source of special wastes imported into England and Wales. The Netherlands produced 1,400 tonnes last year compared with the Phillipines which brought in only 29 tonnes. That is an indication of how much the imports into the United Kingdom would drop if this principle were to be adopted. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: It is our intention that wastes should not be brought to this country for disposal unless there are very good reasons for it. Uppermost in our minds is that a country may not have disposal facilities of its own and since it is in the best interests of the world environment that wastes should be disposed of to the highest standards available, they may need to be brought to this country.
The EC has demonstrated its receptiveness to the principle of self-sufficiency by including a statement of it in the text of the draft framework directive on waste. It will be developing instruments for applying this principle throughout the Community in the regulation to implement the Basle Convention. But it must also, through negotiation with all member states, consider how to implement the principles within the internal market after 1992.
I assure the noble Lord that we are at one on the matter, but I would ask him not to press his amendment to have the provision on the face of the Bill. Clause 131 contains provisions for the Secretary of State or waste regulation authorities to prohibit the import of waste where its import would risk pollution or where we need to conserve our own facilities. As I said in earlier debates, it is necessary in these international matters to carry our fellow members of the European Community, and indeed our partners in international organisations, with us.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. However, will he comment on the future of waste from the north American continent which constitutes about 5,000 tonnes? Perhaps that would not be covered by what my noble friend has already said.
Lord Hesketh: On a previous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and on a preceding amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, we discussed the relationship between the United States and this country and the relationship between those who are signatories to the Basle Convention and those who have ratified the convention. I hope that

1567
answers the noble Lord's point without going over the whole matter again.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 131, line 24, at end insert ("or any of them").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I wish to move Amendment No. 267 which is a minor drafting amendment to make clear that pollution of the environment includes pollution of land, water or air both collectively and individually. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 267A:
(After Clause 131, insert the following new clause:
("National Audit of Toxic Waste

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall within three months of the date of Royal Assent establish a national auditing process for the purpose of identifying, registering and planning measures in relation to, toxic waste kept or deposited within the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of the effective implementation of this section, the Secretary of State shall request such assistance as he considers to be necessary from the chief inspector, waste regulation authorities, environmental organisations or other bodies interested in the matter.

(3) Any person shall comply with such reasonable requests for information made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State as may be conducive to the implementation of this section.").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 267A and 267B, although they have significant differences, are attempts to straighten up the procedure whereby information about waste and treatment facilities is collected, collated and used. We have introduced into Amendment No. 267A the concept of toxic waste. I am the first to recognise that that concept has not been defined elsewhere in the Bill. The problem is that the definitions of waste for importation and exportation purposes are seriously confusing. There are records on hazardous or special waste but they are often inadequate. There are even more inadequate records available on domestic arisings—I believe that is the technical term—of hazardous and/or special waste.
The definition of the waste which ought to be covered by this part of the Bill is quite unsatisfactory. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 appeared to put the matter right: Section 1 of the Act had what appeared to be a good declaratory introduction. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would approve of it in retrospect. The section stated the purpose of the Act. The problem is that over 16 years the section has never been implemented. Therefore the duty on a disposal authority,
"to ensure that the arrangements made … for the disposal of waste are adequate for the … disposing of all controlled waste which becomes situated in its area",
1568
has never been brought into force. To that extent the law has been defective under governments of both political persuasions for a long time.
When we look at the information available to the Secretary of State and to waste authorities, we realise that there is a great imbalance between information available about treatment facilities, which is quite good, and information about the quantities and nature of the waste arising, and even on the nature of waste being imported and exported, which is poor. It is for that reason that we are led in this amendment to propose that there should be an auditing process,
"for the purpose of identifying, registering and planning measures in relation to, toxic waste kept or deposited within the United Kingdom".
I have talked about the Wath incident. There have been innumerable incidents of inadequate controls of toxic waste which will be very familiar to Members of the Committee, almost all of which have arisen as a result of inadequate information about the origin, destination and nature of the toxic wastes.
In the North-East of England there has been a very valuable innovation in attempting to provide for proper planning of the treatment of toxic wastes. A linked inquiry is being carried out involving both Tyneside and Teesside, which are totally separate local authority areas in which separate authorities are responsible for waste regulation. The authorities have decided to hold a joint inquiry in which they deal together with the facilities required for the whole region. That is an admirable initiative, but it presupposes that there is some capacity to understand the nature of the waste problem which faces that region of the country. I seriously doubt whether that information will be available unless we institute an audit of the kind proposed in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: I cannot see that it would serve any useful purpose for there to be a national audit to determine the amount of special waste that is produced in the United Kingdom. I use the words "special waste" in preference to the words "toxic waste" not to score a cheap point but because special waste is the term used in this Bill, and in the Control of Pollution Act before it to denote waste which is dangerous or difficult to dispose of. I believe it is helpful to those who will read the record of this debate to use the words that are defined elsewhere in the Bill.
There is no virtue in collecting statistics for the sake of the exercise. Statistics should be collected where there is a genuine need for information in order to carry out an executive function. There are no executive functions at a national level. There would be no purpose in identifying special waste, registering it, or planning measures in relation to it at a national level. There is no role for central government in this. Identifying special wastes is a task for the waste regulation authorities in the course of administering the special waste regulations. Planning for the disposal of special waste is likewise a task for the regulation authority in preparing its disposal plan. As regards registration of special waste, it will not come as a surprise that the Government see no need for the registration of either

1569
special waste as called for in this amendment or waste in general as called for in the next.
The executive functions in waste regulation therefore lie with the waste regulation authorities. They have duties to control special waste movements and to produce waste disposal plans. In both there is a genuine need for information, but the Bill also provides the powers to obtain it.
Special waste is subject to extra controls over its movement from producer to disposer. The existing provisions of the Special Waste Regulations are carried forward to this Bill and those regulations themselves are being totally rewritten in a separate exercise. That will extend the scope of the regulations to include a much wider range of substances and more stringent tests of danger to the environment. Under the provisions of the Bill more people will be required to keep records of the movement of special waste including waste regulation authorities themselves. The consignment note system will ensure that the authorities have full information about the arisings of special waste in their area. Every movement will be notified to them. It is now for the authorities themselves to ensure that they make the best use of the information that they obtain from chat source.
A second need for information on arisings of special waste is the preparation of waste disposal plans. The special waste consignment note system provides one useful input into the preparation of those plans and supplementary information may be obtained by the authorities through surveys. Clause 48(1)(a) specifically puts a duty on regulation authorities to undertake investigations for that purpose.
That is not to say that there is no role whatsoever for central government in the compiling of national statistics. The department has for some years comp led data from local authority returns on special wastes. When the new system for the control of special waste is in place (after the review of the regulations is complete) we very much hope that those statistics will improve.
It is certainly true that information on the movements of waste in and out of the country has greatly improved since the implementation of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Directive of 1988. That information is tremendously useful in the formulation and monitoring of policy. But the information must come from the grass roots in the first place.
We believe that there would not be a useful purpose in producing a system of national audits for special waste. The need for such information is essentially a local need, and local authorities already have sufficient powers to obtain the information. At the same time, the information can rise to the top if required, but it comes from the grass roots in the first place, as I said earlier. That is why we resist the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I fear that there is still a substantial level of misunderstanding of the content of the amendment shown by the reply. We
1570
recognise that the information has to come from a local level. Indeed, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause states:
"For the purposes of the effective implementation of this section, the Secretary of State shall request such assistance as he considers to be necessary from the chief inspector"—
that is, of HMIP—
"waste regulation authorities, environmental organisations or other bodies interested in the matter".
Subsection (3) states that they shall be required to respond to such requests. So there is no question about where the information comes from. But the point is that the information has to be produced on a consistent basis if action is to be taken on the incidence of waste which arises in a wider area than a single waste authority area. That will not happen unless the Secretary of State takes the lead in specifying what the information should be and how and where it must be produced.
There must also be the other side of the equation: that the facilities to deal with such waste are in existence. But how are we to tell whether the facilities which exist are adequate for the purpose unless we know on a consistent basis the nature and quantity of waste arising? A single waste regulation authority cannot plan beyond its area. We already have disputes between even the larger waste regulation areas—for example, between West Yorkshire and West Midlands, because West Midlands does not want the hazardous waste from York.
The Secretary of State must take a lead and to some extent lay down the form in which the information is collected. Nobody questions the collection of the information. We are in agreement about that. We want to ensure that it is collected effectively. If the Minister had any of the experience that I have had over many years of collecting factual information from sample surveys and trying to see whether they were consistent and could be used on a consistent basis, I think that he would be a little more sympathetic to this notion than he has been in his reply.
However, it was an extremely complex reply, which I shall have to consider more carefully before deciding whether or not to bring back this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved amendment No. 267B:
After Clause 131, insert the following new Clause—
("Registration waste producers

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made within six months of the date of Royal Assent, establish a registration system of—

(a) waste producers operating within the United Kingdom; and

(b) waste producers seeking to export waste to the United Kingdom, or to import waste into it.

(2) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of any system established under this section require waste regulation authorities to undertake registration functions within their areas subject to the requirement to satisfy himself that adequate resources are available to enable them effectively to fulfil such a function.

1571

(3) Any registration system established under this section shall have the purpose of improving the regulation of all types of waste, including dangerous waste, and in particular of requiring the adequate labelling of waste which is being transported, treated, kept, deposited or disposed of.

(4) The Secretary of State shall in making regulations under this section specify after consultation with waste regulation authorities, environmental organisations, waste producers and other interested persons, the types of waste to which labelling and registration requirements are to be applicable.").

The noble Lord said: Let us try again to approach the same issue from a different angle, because we are not getting very far and it is our duty not to be discouraged by the kind of responses that we are receiving. I think it will be agreed that we all want a consistent and effective method of control of the generation, movement and disposal of waste, and hazardous wastes in particular. In other words, in the jargon phrase, we want a cradle-to-grave approach to waste management. That is common ground.
If we are not to have a national audit and the collection of information on a consistent basis, there is another approach which could be used to provide the information required; namely, the analogy of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, which empowered the Secretary of State to set up a system for registered carriers. The direct analogy with that is that there should be a registration system of waste producers operating within the United Kingdom, seeking to export waste from or import waste to the United Kingdom.
I deal with the question raised earlier this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. We are not speaking of domestic waste producers but of those for whom it is part of their occupation; namely, producers of industrial and commercial waste. Clearly any such regulations will include provision to exclude the smallest waste producers. We shall be concerned only with major waste producers if the Secretary of State has any sense.
It is necessary to know the origin and destination of waste of this kind because we have no equivalent to the effective HAZCHEM system which is used when dealing with chemical products. If chemical products are being dealt with which are not waste but are dangerous in transit, it is possible to specify in detail what they are, and to give them codes and symbols on the side of the vehicles transporting them so that if there is an accident, the fire authorities, and so on, know immediately what action should be taken. The chemicals are not then sprayed in the wrong way or treated in a way which would cause greater danger.
There is no equivalent when we are talking about waste because invariably it is a compound of different materials. The significance of the waste will not be the basic make-up of materials, but whether it has been treated in one way or another, possibly only with trace elements. Therefore, to that extent, we do not have the capacity, which we have in the chemical industry, for a simple labelling system. We must rely on something which is rather more complicated.
The amendment proposes a registration of producers in order to provide a substitute for the
1572
simpler system. However, something must be done if we are to have effective control. As drafted, the Bill does not provide that. This amendment goes some way towards remedying the defect. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment has a long history. It was back in the early 1980s that the Science and Technology Committee of this House first recommended that the producers of hazardous waste should be registered with the local authority. Another recommendation made at the same time was for the licensing of waste carriers, and last week we debated that point in connection with Clause 29.
Many Members of the Committee will know that those recommendations were given very long and serious consideration by the Government. The joint review committee deliberated for several years on those and other matters, but concluded that the registration of hazardous waste producers could not be justified. The resources involved would be enormous, as the amendment now before us implicitly concedes in requiring the Secretary of State to give an open ended guarantee that he will ensure that whatever resources are needed for this gargantuan task will be provided. And what would the registration of producers of waste provide?
We discussed in the course of Amendment No. 267A that the information on producers of special waste is already available to waste regulation authorities through the special waste consignment note system. A register of special waste producers would not therefore add a great deal to the information held by these authorities. But the amendment goes further than this and therefore much further even than the recommendation of the Science and Technology Committee so many years ago. It requires the registration of every waste producer in the country. Charitably assuming that the amendment intends to register only businesses producing waste and not households as well, we would still be left with a register of every business in the country. The telephone directory would be as much use.
The noble Lord wishes the register to contain details of the kinds and quantities of the waste that each business produces, and has argued that this is necessary for the regulation authorities to do their job. Such a register could not be managed. Apart from the sheer size of it, how would it be kept up to date? Businesses change. They change inasmuch as they come and go. How would an authority keep a check on who had come and who had gone? They also change their production methods, their product lines and their stocks. How would an authority keep a check on all these items? There would need to be in this clause an elaborate system of duties for each business to inform its waste regulation authority every time some event changed its waste stream, with penalties on those who did not comply. This proposal runs counter to the changes of the times throughout the world where the trend is towards less information centrally held on individuals and less bureaucracy.

1573
It was precisely because a system of registration would not be workable that the Government developed one of the most central and important parts of Part II of the Bill, the duty of care. Without the bureaucracy of registration of producers, the duty of care is specifically designed to ensure that the items listed in subsection (3) of the amendment are achieved. It will be a central part of the duty of care that waste must be adequately packaged and labelled for any storage on the producers' premises and for any journey that it subsequently makes. By placing real duties on waste producers we shall achieve far more than we could possibly achieve through a registration system that would swamp the authority in paper that it could not handle. The duty of care means that waste producers are not subjected to a massive form-filling exercise but are under the pain of criminal sanction for things that they actually do with their waste. They will be required to take as much care over the fate of their waste products as they do over the fate of those that they sell. This is a much more effective tool for waste regulation than an enormous register.
I cannot believe that the proposal to register every business in the United Kingdom, no matter how small, is the right way to cope with the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was a classic case of setting up an Aunt Sally in order to knock it down. The amendment says nothing about an enormous register. It provides that the Secretary of State shall by regulation set up a registration system. The Secretary of State has the freedom to make that registration system as restricted as he wishes and in order to make it effective to concentrate as necessary on the major producers and importers and exporters of waste. It does not invalidate the amendment to state in it that adequate resources should be provided. Of course adequate resources should be provided; they should be provided for all the provisions in the Bill. It would have been neglectful of us not to make that provision in the amendment.
The Minister seeks to counter the amendment by referring to the duty of care provision and the consignment note procedure which is to be introduced into those provisions. I put it to him that the number of consignment notes that will be required is much greater than the registration of the major producers. The amendment contains no implication that every single detail of the major producers should be kept up to date at all times and included in the register. The register should contain enough information to identify the type of business in which the producers are involved and the type of risk that may be identified if something goes wrong with anything that they produce.
I suggest that the registration system would simplify the consignment note provisions made in the earlier parts of the Bill. The amount of bureaucracy would be less. However I have not convinced the Minister at this stage and it may be a matter to which we shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 132 [Powers to obtain information about potentially harmful substances]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 268 and 269:
Page 132, line 41, at end insert ("or any of them").
Page 133, line 9, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 are small drafting changes intended to ensure that Clause 132 is unambiguous and consistent with other parts of the Bill. The purpose of Amendment No. 268 is to make it clear that "environment" includes any or all of air, land and water. Amendment No. 269 clarifies the exclusion for food products based on a definition of food in the Food Act 1984. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Clause 132(4)(i) on page 132 states:
"make any public authority designated by the regulations responsible for the enforcement of the regulations to such extent as may be specified in the regulations".
That is a bit of a mouthful but I wish to know whether the provision includes the police. I hope that they are included in that particular case.
The Earl of Arran: I am bound to say that it sounds a very interesting question, but I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend a secure answer. I shall be writing to him in the very near future on this point.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 270 had been retabled as Amendment No. 379A.]
Schedule 11 [Injurious or Hazardous Substances.. Advisory Committee]:
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 271:
Page 192, line 4, at end insert ("of this Act").
The noble Earl said: It is the usual custom in a schedule, when referring to clauses of a Bill, to use the words "of this act" after those clauses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: We are delighted to accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Renton: Before we proceed any further, I should just mention that I have spoken to the Leader of the House and have suggested to him that, as we are now reaching a very important part of the Bill, we really should not continue our consideration tonight. It is so important because it deals with statutory nuisances and clean air. Not only is there the whole question of atmospheric pollution, which is causing great anxiety these days because of the damage to the ozone layer and so on, but there are also various kinds of statutory nuisance to be dealt with. All the provisions have to be dovetailed with

1575
the Clean Air Act of 1956, the Clean Air Act of 1968 and the Control of Pollution Act of 1974.
There are a great many amendments on the Marshalled List, some of them of considerable importance. I have alerted my noble friend the Leader of the House to this and I should like to suggest that it will take a very long time—probably several hours—to deal with this part of the Bill if we are to do it satisfactorily. We are reaching the end of the third of seven days allotted to the Committee stage and I should have thought that some of the provisions to be dealt with on the remaining four days were really a good deal less important than those which we are now approaching. I am not quite sure whether I am in order, but I beg to move that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
Lord Belstead: I think that we are to some extent in the hands not only of this side of the Committee but of Members on the other side. We have a working agreement always in this Chamber as to how far we wish to get each day and the present agreement was that we would get rather further than my noble friend Lord Renton is saying—with some justification, I realise—he feels we ought to go. If the Opposition feel that we should continue, I have to say in all friendliness to my noble friend Lord Renton that we ought to try to reach the point we had earlier intended, in agreement with the Opposition, to get to. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, what his view is?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The idea that we should proceed to the end of Part III of the Bill was originally a proposition which I put to the Government some four weeks ago. It is always difficult early on to anticipate what the volume of business is likely to be on any particular day. Members of the Committee will have noticed that a large part of today's business has not come from the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps our anticipations in that respect were not correct.
I foresaw that there might be difficulty in this way. I must say, in order to set my reputation straight with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that I offered to the Government that we might stop rather earlier than we now propose to do, but it was not convenient for the Government for reasons that I well understand. In the circumstances, with much regret (because I should prefer to deal with these matters at a time when more Members were able to be present), I suggest that we should continue as originally agreed.
Lord Renton: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, and in view of information that my noble friend Lord Belstead has given me, I suppose that one must accede to the suggestion that we should continue. However, it is regrettable that such important provisions will be discussed when there are so few Members here to take part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 271A:
Page 80, line 45, at beginning insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this section, a statutory nuisance shall be any matter specified in or under subsection (1) below which either causes harm to the environment within the meaning of section 1 above, or causes harm to the health of any person and in this subsection the health of a person shall be taken to include a state of physical well-being, and not merely an absence of disease.").
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether it helps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if I say that, although as he rightly said the matters with which we deal in Part III of the Bill—statutory nuisances—are not only of great intrinsic importance in themselves, but are of great day-to-day concern to many millions of people in this country, they are not dealt with satisfactorily in this part of the Bill.
Whatever time of night it may be the approach that has been made to Part III of the Bill, which is more or less the approach of a consolidation Bill rather than an attempt to think again about the problem of statutory nuisance as a whole, is not satisfactory. That is the reason why we have a significant number of amendments tabled to this part of the Bill.
I need only draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Clause 76(1)(h) allows the Government, without further reference to Parliament, to add to the list of statutory nuisances, to make it clear that we have here one of the classic cases of enabling legislation without any acceptable or understandable statement of principle about that with which we are concerned.
This part of the Bill needs a single unifying concept of what is meant by statutory nuisance. That is what is lacking and that is the reason why we have to table specific amendments about such matters as cable burning, floodlighting and motor vehicles, rather than dealing with the essence of statutory nuisance. That is why the Government have felt it necessary to go further in Clause 76 and to suggest that they themselves should have the power to add to the list of statutory nuisances. What we have is little more than a revised restatement of existing legislation rather than an opportunity taken, as it should have been, to think again about the purposes of legislation regarding statutory nuisance as a whole.
In this amendment we seek to deal with one of the major issues of statutory nuisance; namely, what is meant by health. We referred to that matter in dealing with earlier clauses in the Bill, and when we talked then about health we suggested that health should be defined more broadly than physical health. I suggest to the Committee that, in this case, the health of any person should be taken to include:
"a state of physical well-being, and not merely an absence of disease".
I put that forward as the most important single example of the way in which the Bill has adapted—almost without significant rethinking or possibly without significant thought—the concepts which existed in preceding statutory nuisance legislation.
There can be no doubt that statutory nuisance legislation is one of the areas of our law which causes the most difficulty as between local authorities and their electors; between local people and environmental health officers. Local people cannot understand why what is a nuisance to them, what is causing them to suffer ill-health, is excluded from legislation. They cannot understand why the environmental health officer has to say either, "I do not have the resources to deal with this", or "The law does not allow me to deal with this".
One of the ways in which environmental health officers would be enabled to deal with statutory nuisance more effectively would be if the definition of "health", which is so narrowly stated, were extended along the lines suggested in the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: If this modest looking amendment were accepted, there would be no need for most of the rest of the Bill. The point is that the amendment would load onto the statutory nuisance provisions, and hence on local authorities, the function of policing all processes that might give rise to any damage to the environment and atmosphere or upset the ecological balance.
Traditionally, the law has consistently defined a statutory nuisance as something which is either prejudicial to health or a nuisance to persons; something that adversely affects personal comfort or interferes with the enjoyment of one's property. Now such a nuisance may coincidentally cause damage to the environment or atmosphere but not necessarily; for example, a nasty smell can upset one's wellbeing but not damage the planet.
This amendment would wrench the whole concept of statutory nuisance into something quite inappropriate. It would place on local authorities the awesome responsibility of assessing the impact of some local phenomenon on the environment as a whole. The hardpressed environmental health officer would have to become master of the greenhouse gas effect. Councils would be inundated with requests for them to take action from all manner of well-intentioned but over-enthusiastic residents who had read some new report of environmental menace in the latest copy of the New Scientist.
Rather than using that blunderbuss approach, we believe in clear, targeted controls to prevent damage to our environment such as those contained in Part I of the Bill. We need to look at the specific processes which cause environmental or atmospheric pollution and to lay down limits on emissions and the means of dealing with them. Part III deals with the essentially local nuisances which affect individuals. Of course there is no hard and fast line between what affects individuals and what affects the environment as a whole—
"No man is an Island"—
but we consider that it is useful for environmental health officers to have this distinction in mind.
The amendment would also define health as including a state of physical well-being. The existing definition of prejudicial to health—which incidentally we are extending to noise nuisance for
1578
the first time through this Bill—has stood the test of time well and does not seem to hamper local authorities in carrying out their responsibilities so far as we are aware.
It is for those reasons, and with those thoughts in mind, that I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When I first heard that response, I thought it was over the top; when I heard the noble Earl quoting Donne in his defence I knew it must be over the top.
The concept that we are proposing in the amendment is not foreign to the Bill as drafted. Part I defines the environment in terms of the environmental media including buildings and other natural or man-made structures. Statutory nuisances arise in premises, from activities in premises, in relation to land or living things or the creation of noise or other pollution within the broad terms envisaged by Part I of the Bill. Part I of the Bill was introduced to set those broad terms. This amendment borrows the concept of harm set out in Part I of the Bill. Clause 1(4) includes,
"harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part".
It also includes,
"offence caused to any of his senses or harm to his property".
One would not think that the Bill was like that having heard the response which the noble Earl has just given. It was as if we were somehow throwing the entire Bill in the air by proposing this modest updating of the definition of health.
Any doctor will tell the Government that health is more than the absence of disease. Health is a matter of well-being and it is the responsibility of us all as part of the environment to secure that we have more than just the absence of disease and that we are contributing to well-being. I totally reject the noble Earl's suggestion that the amendment is damaging to the concept of the Bill as a whole. I also totally reject his arguments. One does not get rid of the danger from fumes simply by calling them a nasty smell as he did. Smells are caused by something and it is not just that they are nasty. They can he dangerous in a way which it would be easier to control if this amendment had been accepted.
Perhaps I may make one general point about this part of the Bill in the light of the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a few minutes ago. At this time of night I do not think that we shall propose any Divisions on this part of the Bill. I am not suggesting that we shall seek the opinion of the Committee. If that means that the payroll vote can go home, then good luck to them. Having said that I shall stick to it.
It means that all these amendments will be treated as probing amendments. When we come to the end of this discussion we shall certainly be seeking a timetable for Report stage at which statutory nuisance is given suitable prominence. It may be that we shall have to return to a considerable number of the issues being debated at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 271B:
Page 80, line 45, at beginning insert—
("( ) This Part shall have effect for specifying those statutory nuisances which it shall be the duty of a local authority to take into account in undertaking any audit of the physical environment of its area.").
The noble Lord said: I do not think that there is anything startling about the concept proposed in this amendment. What we are trying to do is to link the concept of statutory nuisance in Part III of the Bill with the undertaking concerning environmental audits by local authorities.
That is not a completely new concept. It is becoming more widely accepted in local and central government. I shall be very surprised if the White Paper promised by the Government for September of this year does not involve to some extent the concept of environmental audits. No answer is required on that because it is not a direct question. But I would be prepared to lay some small bets that environmental audits play a significant part in any government White Paper.
The local authority associations are looking at good practice in this field. One of the conclusions that they are coming to quite readily is that it is a good way of focusing attention on the state of the environment which will enable everybody concerned—not just the local authorities but voluntary organisations and individuals—to play their part in the improvement of the environment.
Statutory nuisance is a significant part of the quality of our daily lives in the environment. The environmental audit has a significant part to play in improving the quality of our lives by improving the definition, identification and removal of statutory nuisance. We are suggesting that local environmental health officers can play an important part in determining the environmental state of the area. We already have concerned communities looking at the background and roadside level of pollution. It is very valuable that, for example, the Evening Standard is beginning to publish such assessments on a daily basis.
That is an example of the kind of environmental audit that we should like to see set up. It would be valuable as a warning to those who are creating pollution what it is they are in danger of contributing to. We are not suggesting that there should be anything prescriptive about this. We are saying that it is important to increase awareness of people's rights under the statutory nuisance provision. This amendment could play an important part in helping the public to know its rights and in ensuring that those rights can be enforced. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: We touched on the subject of environmental or green auditing by local authorities and others during discussion of Part I of the Bill. This is something which a number of local authorities are already undertaking and can be highly effective if properly conducted. Officials in the Department of the Environment have been discussing with the local authority associations how this might be carried forward.
1580
I hope that in due course the local authority associations will arrive at common guidance for those authorities wishing to carry out environmental audits. The Department of the Environment will certainly offer all the help it can in this respect. But we believe that it would be inappropriate to lay down on the face of the Bill what would amount to a selective contents list for such audits.
I agree with the noble Lord that it may well be that local authorities will wish to use data concerning statutory nuisance in arriving at an assessment of how local environmental quality in their area has improved or declined over time. They may also have other measures which they wish to take into account which will probably alter over time as new means of collecting and assessing environmental information become available. The noble Lord will gather that we do not consider Amendment No. 271B to be the right way of getting to what is nonetheless an agreed goal.
Amendment No. 387ZA would cancel the repeal of Sections 91 to 100 of the Public Health Act 1936 which are essentially being replaced by Part III of this Bill. It would therefore leave on the statute book an exactly parallel though older piece of legislation. My noble friend explained on Second Reading why we consider that Part III of the Public Health Act 1936 needs improvement and updating. Its basic provisions have stood the test of time well and have been effectively used by generations of environmental health officers. But the legislation is showing some signs of age and extensive consultation in 1986 revealed a number of areas where changes were necessary. I might add that the Government are very grateful to the local authority associations, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and other bodies who have responded so helpfully to consultation and are directly responsible for many of the amendments before us, in the Government's name and otherwise.
We consider that the strengthened statutory nuisance regime that will emerge from the Bill should give a further 50 years of trouble-free service. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's response was not very well directed to the nature of the amendment. It is by no means the case that the amendment specifies a selective list of duties on a local authority which by implication excludes other duties. All the amendment requires is that:
"This Part shall have effect for specifying those statutory nuisances which it shall be the duty of a local authority to take into account in undertaking any audit of the physical environment of its area".
It does not even require the local authority to undertake any audit of the physical environment of the area. All it says is that if the authority is going to do so—the noble Earl and I clearly agree that pressure is increasing for environmental audits—it shall take account of the provisions of Part III of the Bill.
I find the amendment very much less threatening and dangerous and very much more helpful and moderate than the noble Earl does. I shall seek to

1581
convince him at a later stage of the virtue of this approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 272
Page 80, line 45, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (5)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend I speak also to Amendment No. 278. Amendment No. 272 is a minor technical amendment. It is purely and simply a correction to the drafting of Clause 76(1). Without it subsection (1) would not cross-refer to the two subsections covering steam and aircraft exemptions which were added in another place.
The Government have brought forward Amendment No. 278 because we have concluded that in certain circumstances Clause 142 does not provide sufficient safeguards for the interests of national security where operational activities of the armed forces are involved. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We are very worried about this amendment. It is clearly a case of applying Crow immunity. The Minister referred to "certain circumstances". What are those certain circumstances? All the Minister said was that the Government had concluded that, in certain circumstances, this exclusion should apply. He owes an explanation to a great many people of how he justifies Crown immunity.
The Minister knows, because he is well versed in these matters, that a steady process over many years has culminated in Crown immunity being lifted from such places as hospitals and schools. There is great agitation to lift it from prisons. However, with this amendment the Government are applying Crown immunity.
I am grateful to a Dr. Hartley Dean who lives in Westbrook, Margate. He has drawn my attention to a number of ways in which this protection would be detrimental to his area. He refers to Manston airbase which is used by the RAF's fire service central training establishment. He informs me that what are called controlled fires are regularly started. These emit massive palls of dense black smoke which often drift for several miles, directly over Margate, before dispersing into the atmosphere. The precise nature of the pollutants in the smoke is not known.
The fires have been the subject of frequent complaints for several years but, because the Ministry of Defence enjoys Crown immunity, no action can be taken by the civil authorities to control those activities. If any Members of this Committee were affected by such fires they would be as concerned and outraged as Dr. Hartley Dean. The Ministry of Defence can offer no satisfactory assurance. It admits that there are, on average, four fires a day at Manston—I repeat, four fires a day—which is a staggering statistic. It is a fire school. I can understand that the fires are necessary in order to train the firemen. However, I ask the Government to think again about this easement in what is, after all, a Bill to protect the environment.
We understand the requirements of defence and the exigencies of the armed services. We are prepared
1582
to go along with the Minister. We are responsible as a party and as individuals. Nevertheless, the Minister must justify this amendment in the light of a Bill specifically designed to extend protection.
Lord Renton: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in what he said about Amendment No. 278. I too am opposed to it. No one can object to Amendment No. 272 which deals merely with re-numbering.
I implore my noble friends on the Front Bench to reconsider Amendment No. 278. By giving a blanket exemption to the armed forces the Government are taking a great risk, for reasons given by the noble Lord. When we are trying to improve the environment, the armed forces, being disciplined, have a great part to play in setting an example to the rest of the community. However, this amendment will discourage them from so doing.
In moving the amendment, my noble friend Lord Arran said that for operational reasons it may be necessary to give the forces some exemption. However, the amendment says nothing about operational reasons. A very large part of the lives of those serving in the armed forces in this country in peacetime is non-operational. It really is not good enough that we should have this blanket exemption for them.
I should like to say a word about visiting forces. I happen to know of an American aerodrome where a great amount of dark smoke—which is a terrible nuisance and, again, a bad example to the rest of the community—is caused by burning large quantities of used tyres and other such materials. Yet this bad practice will be given full justification by the amendment. It really is not good enough.
I ask my noble friends not to ask Members of the Committee to accept the amendment this evening. I suggest that they give an undertaking that they will consider what has been said. They can then move the amendment afresh—if they think it should be moved—on Report, with or without it being modified.
The Earl of Arran: I have listened with great care, diligence and attention to the concerns expressed by noble Lords. I can say that, with or without modification, we shall consider this amendment very carefully and return to the matter on Report.
Lord Renton: I am most grateful to my noble friend, as, I am sure, is the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am indeed most grateful to the Minister. I appreciate the significance of his remarks. If a short consultation would be helpful in order to facilitiate procedures on Report, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and myself will be able to make ourselves available.
The Earl of Arran: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 81, line 1, after ("premises") insert ("or motor vehicles").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 273A, 274, 275 and 275A. All of these amendments are concerned with the statutory nuisance or, unfortunately, the non-statutory nuisance which is caused by motor vehicles. I think if the question were put to the general public as to what they understood to be the most common sources of nuisance, it would be found that they were not very familiar with the concept or the phrase of a "statutory nuisance". However, if they were asked about things which caused them trouble and which ought to be put right, they would list motor vehicles among them.
The Government have congratulated themselves in advance on the addition to the list of statutory nuisances the idea of there being a noise nuisance. I join in those congratulations. In my view, it is a very welcome step forward. However, let us now have another really welcome step forward which would make the Government extremely popular. It would not, of course, overcome their other deficiencies in public popularity; but it certainly would not do them any harm. I refer to their recognising the fact that what ordinary people understand as being a nuisance includes the effects of the motor vehicle. These amendments which seek to deal with nuisance from motor vehicles should be accepted.
Amendment No. 273 adds the words "motor vehicles" to the list of matters which constitute statutory nuisances; in other words, they will be inserted after the word "premises".
Amendment No. 273A is a special case. It deals with smoke emitted from diesel engines. Noble Lords who spend any time in Parliament Square will be aware of the smoke emitted from coaches and lorries, especially almost stationary coaches and lorries. It is a significant nuisance which should be statutory.
Amendment No. 275 is a cleaning-up amendment. The need for Amendment No. 275A can be observed by looking out in Parliament Square, because it is noticeable that coaches tend to run their engines when they are stationary—in summer to keep the air conditioning going, and in winter to keep the heating going. It is extremely offensive, apart from the damage that it does to energy conservation.
The argument that has been used, which is clearly an interdepartmental argument that should not affect Parliament if we can possibly avoid it, is that the control of nuisance from vehicles is the responsibility of the Home Office and the police. They do not want those responsibilities, however. They do not want to be concerned with smoke emissions, air pollution or noise pollution from motor vehicles. In so far as they are concerned with motor vehicles—I imagine that most of the police wish that they were less concerned with motor vehicles—it is because they have to be concerned with road safety and with offences committed involving motor vehicles. Those are the core
1584
responsibilities of the police, and behind them of the Home Office in respect of motor vehicles. In every other respect, the police and the Home Office believe that those matters should be the responsibility of local authority environmental health officers.
That does not mean that we are suggesting the creation of a completely new force of uniformed para-police inspectors with the power to stop motor vehicles and say to the drivers, "Your exhaust is too dangerous". That would not be necessary. There are good ways of carrying out occasional blitzes. That already happens with the police and local authorities. There are good ways of employing a combination of police and environmental health officers, just as there is a combination of police and traffic wardens which deals with certain types of motoring offence.
A great deal of what we are talking about in the amendments, especially diesel fuel emissions and the problems caused by stationary vehicles, could be dealt with without any chasing after the vehicle. One merely notes the number and invites the owner to present himself to prove that his vehicle is not committing the offence of statutory nuisance of creating unwanted and dangerous smoke emission or air pollution. If those problems are suggested by the Government in their reply, they can be easily got round. The ordinary people of this country will want the definition of statutory nuisance to include motor vehicles. This is an opportunity for the Government to recognise what ordinary people want, and to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In relation to the amendments there is one important and fundamental question which I should be grateful if my noble friends on the Front Bench would answer. Perhaps only my noble friend the Leader of the House can answer it. The question is: is it intended that the Bill shall be part of our country's effort to join other countries in protecting the ozone layer? If it is, then we should be considering the pollution caused by motor vehicles, aircraft and any other form of combustion, because the damage to the ozone layer is caused by the production of carbon dioxide.
It is well known that motor vehicles, aircraft, the burning of fossil fuels, and so on—all things that go with our daily lives—create carbon dioxide. We know that an international conference is being held in London at the moment to decide how to protect the ozone layer. If it be the fact that the Bill is not part of the Government's contribution towards solving that problem, I should have thought that we would be quite justified in doing nothing about motor vehicles, as the noble Lord suggests, or about aircraft, diesel engines and so on. Various other branches of the law can already deal with the bad cases. There are prosecutions from time to time of motorists who cause dark smoke to come from their vehicles. That has been so for years and years.
Without an answer to that question, we cannot—or I certainly find I cannot—form an intelligent opinion on this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has done us a service in drawing attention to the problem of pollution caused by motor vehicles. However, we

1585
need to know the answer to that fundamental question.
Lord Hesketh: I wish that I could give my noble friend Lord Renton a clear and certain answer. In a way, the answer is partly yes and partly no. When we debated amendments to Part I of the Bill, certain amendments made direct reference to CO2 emissions. My noble friend Lord Renton has rightly mentioned the ozone layer. At this very moment in London, the matter is being discussed with the extension of the Montreal Protocol regarding CFCs. That is a slightly separate issue.
If there is a single vein that runs through this Bill in terms of precedence and importance, it is this. We have a Bill in which the number one principle is integrated pollution control. That in itself is not so much to do with CO2 emissions, the ozone layer or the greenhouse effect. Many other important matters are dealt with in the Bill which range from the Nature Conservancy Council to the amendments concerning dogs and various other aspects.
It is fair to say to my noble friend that the most important part of the Bill is on integrated pollution control. The Bill touches on other areas which bite on the problems that he has mentioned, but it would not be true for me to say that the principal part of the Bill relates to CO2. The debates we had on Part I of the Bill also referred to the Government's White Paper which addresses far more the principle of CO2 and the results of the intergovernment panel on climate change. It is crucial and will appear in the autumn.
Lord Renton: I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend. Although he could not give a completely positive statement in relation to Part III of the Bill, he reminded us of the provisions for integrated pollution control and air pollution control by local authorities under Part I. However, to what extent is Part III intended to be in aid of Part I? If it is intended to be in aid of Part I, I should like to see Part III improved in various ways which I shall mention in the discussion on whether Clause 76 shall stand part. We should also get it quite clear in our minds whether or not in order to fulfil the objectives of Part I we should be dealing with motor vehicles, and perhaps even aircraft—aircraft also produce a lot of carbon dioxide—in Part III.
12 midnight
Lord Hesketh: I think it would be fair to say that Part III is consistent with Part I of the Bill. On the matter of whether or not it is in aid of Part I of the Bill I defer to my noble friend's superior understanding of these matters. It is also important to remember that we tabled a consistent number of amendments with regard to motor vehicles and large power stations in Part I of the Bill.
Lord Renton: No one should have a greater understanding of a Bill than the Minister in charge of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Touché! The Minister is certainly right in saying that our approach to Part
1586
I and Part III of the Bill has been consistent. I shall certainly not repeat my Second Reading speech on the subject; but we have taken the view that integrated pollution control in all its aspects requires the inclusion of the role of what is now the Department of Transport in respect of enforcement of pollution controls on motor vehicles, that of the Home Office and certainly that of the Department of Energy, because energy conservation is an essential, integral part of pollution control. In so far as this is and remains a Department of the Environment Bill and neglects the aspects of administration and public life covered by the Home Office, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence—perhaps we have won a minor victory there—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Not minor.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, not minor. I yield to my noble friend Lord Graham. Perhaps there has been a significant shift in the Government's attitude on that. Our view is that if we are to have integrated pollution control, we must include motor vehicles in that provision. That is why both in Part I and in Part III of the Bill we have introduced appropriate amendments.
The Government will not be readily forgiven by those who suffer as my neighbours do—I live within a quarter of a mile of the A1—from vehicle emissions, if they brush vehicle emissions on to one side and refuse to deal with them in the context of integrated pollution control and statutory nuisance. It is not enough to say that there are existing laws. In order for there to be existing laws there must also be the means and the willingness to enforce them.
The police in particular are grossly overstrained in the other aspects of their duties which are to them, and to many other people, more important, and in so far as they have time to deal with traffic at all they are not surprisingly concerned to deal with motoring offences and road safety. Here is an area where the control of pollution could well be civilianised. It could well become the responsibility of environmental health officers who cost a good deal less than the police although they cost just as much to train as they are just as skilled. Those officers could and should take an active part. This is a matter to which we shall certainly return on Report. We would not be forgiven if we neglected to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 273A to 275A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 275B:
Page 81, line 13, at end insert:
("(gg) the illegal burning of any cable so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this is largely a technical amendment. After a considerable debate in Committee in another place the Government amended Clause 76(1)(d) so that it now reads:
"any dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
It was pointed out in another place at Committee stage that illegal cable burning does not take place on business premises. It tends to take place on open land, in lay-bys or wherever people who undertake the activity find it convenient. Therefore, so far as we can see, it is not covered by any of the provisions in paragraphs (a) to (g) of Clause 76(1). I hope that the Government did not intend that. It would be inconceivable that they did, and I hope that they will take this opportunity to correct the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although the noble Lord described this as just a technical amendment it is a matter of some importance. I do not agree with the wording. The word "illegal" is quite unnecessary. If there is to be such a provision it should not be confined to cable. I believe that it should read:
"The burning of any material which, when burned, is prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
That would make much more sense.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can save the Government the obligation of replying. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made a very valid point. I shall not wait for the Government's reply. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment and bring it back at a later stage in the form which has been suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 275C:
Page 81, line 13, at end insert:
("(gg) floodlighting at a time or intensity which is prejudicial to health or a nuisance;").
The noble Lord said: This is another matter which may seem to be marginal or incidental but it certainly is not marginal or incidental to those who suffer from it.
There are three kinds of floodlighting. There is floodlighting which is purely decorative and which people have in their gardens. My neighbours have lighting in nasty changing colours. I find it rather offensive but I would not claim that it was a statutory nuisance. Then there is exterior lighting which is used to guide people to a house or for security purposes. It would be easy to define conditions under which that would be allowed and would not be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. There is also floodlighting, some of it on industrial or commercial premises, sometimes for exaggerated security reasons, and some of it on domestic premises, which is extremely offensive and causes great pain and anguish to those who suffer from it.
I have been bombarded with examples of such floodlighting since the amendment was first seen. It ought to be and I am convinced could be dealt with by the statutory nuisance provisions. I very much hope that the answers that were given in another place to comparable amendments which relied on the necessity for more modest floodlighting on occasion—which we acknowledge—will not be repeated now. I hope that it will be recognised that
1588
there is a genuine public demand for action to deal with the problem of floodlighting at an intensity or at a time which are prejudicial to health or which are a nuisance.
I am advised that one of the significant elements which constitutes a nuisance is when the primary light source is in sight of the people who suffer from it. I am quite convinced that environmental health officers could advise the Secretary of State as to how such a statutory nuisance could be defined in operation. I am sure that the Government would be well advised from the point of view of meeting public demand to accept this amendment or something very like it. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: I should like to speak in support of the amendment. Although it may be believed that this is a problem that occurs in urban areas, I can assure the Committee that it also occurs in rural areas. I live in an area where the farm buildings are floodlit all night long. I do not know why. It may be to help fowl to lay more eggs.
There is also the other side of the coin, with roads being floodlit as a safety precaution. Although I sometimes wonder why we have to have all these lights on at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning in fact I accept that it is a safety measure. The Minister may well say that in response.
The Earl of Arran: We are not convinced that we should be justified in setting up a new category of statutory nuisance to catch nuisance caused by floodlighting. The matter was raised in another place. My honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside undertook to give further consideration to the question of nuisances caused by light. We have consulted as widely as time allowed. Enquiries which officials made of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers have not disclosed that this is a widespread problem nor that any widespread measure of support appears to exist on the part of local authorities for having such powers.
Most floodlighting installations would be subject to planning permission. The physical development involved in the installation of floodlighting apparatus amounts to development for planning purposes. In determining an application for planning permission, a local planning authority is required to have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other "material considerations". The effect of the development on local environment and amenity would be a material consideration for a planning authority to take into account in deciding whether to grant permission.
However, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is prepared to look further at the adequacy of the present planning controls, and indeed we are prepared to consider this matter further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is disappointing that the Minister has not been able to come to the Chamber with amendments but I understand the point that he made about the short time available for consultation. I accept with gratitude the offer

1589
that he made to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 81, line 18, at end insert ("and in the case of noise nuisance to take all reasonable steps to investigate a complaint from any person living within that area.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 276, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I also wish to speak, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, to Amendment No. 277 which is grouped with it.
The purpose of Amendment No. 276 is to extend the activities that a local authority shall undertake in its area. As the clause is drafted, the authority shall inspect its area from time to time to detect statutory nuisance. The amendment seeks to ensure that, with regard to nuisance caused by noise, a local authority would respond to complaints from the public. The Government may say that the proposal is covered by the term "from time to time". If so, that is welcome. But it is important to recognise that noise nuisance may often be of a transitory nature. For instance, a late night party, while not necessarily health-threatening in the same way that fumes or gas may be, must be dealt with as soon as practicable.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, had hoped to be present to speak to his amendment, Amendment No. 277. It is not strictly on all fours with Amendment No. 276, but there are common elements. Amendment No. 277 alludes to the current legislation upon which these matters rest; namely, the Public Health Act 1936 and the Control of Pollution Act. They give power to investigate complaints rather than to send inspectors periodically to investigate premises generally.
The National Conference on Clean Air undertook a survey. Three out of four local authorities responded to the effect that they investigate complaints; one out of four does not. There is a disparity of approach which could well be seen to be unsatisfactory. The United Kingdom Environmental Law Association and the National Society for Clean Air have suggested in separate reports that the situation should be put right in favour of the majority view adopted by local authorities. I beg to move.
12.15 a m.
Lord Hesketh: The working party on the Department of the Environment's review of noise has recommended that action should be taken to clarify the duty on local authorities. The Government are favourably disposed to the amendments in principle, but believe that consultation with local authorities and other organisations is necessary. We shall be consulting shortly and if the response supports the intention behind the amendments, we shall return with an amendment at a later date. I therefore hope that the noble Lard will not press his amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is not only the best offer that I shall get at this time of night, it is
1590
the best offer that I am likely to get at any time of the day! I am grateful to the Minister. In the light of what he said and subject to him delivering the goods, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 277 and 278 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 279:
Page 82, line 17, at end insert ("and, subject to subsection (11) below, any vessel;").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 280 and 282ZA. Clause 76(10) already provides for vessels in territorial waters to be subject to the nuisance provisions of Part III. However, Part III of the Bill contains nothing explicit about the application of the nuisance provisions to vessels in inland waters. That is an omission which we need to rectify. Our intention is to maintain the status quo. At present vessels in inland waters are subject to the nuisance provisions of the Public Health Act 1936 by virtue of Section 267 of that Act.
That is no doubt the reason for the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Craigton and I am grateful to him for his perspicacity. We have brought forward our own amendment designed to make clear that vessels in inland waters—excluding preserved and recreational steam vessels—are subject to the nuisance provisions. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 282ZA, Part III was amended in another place so as to exclude vessels powered by steam reciprocating machinery. Subsection (11) contains the relevant provision. Our objective was to exempt from the nuisance provisions of Part III preserved and recreational steam vessels. My noble friend seeks in this amendment to confine that exemption to vessels in territorial waters. If the amendment was accepted, nuisance controls would apply to such vessels when operating in inland waters.
Preserved and recreational steam vessels give pleasure to a great many people. They are relatively few in number and the effect on the environment is negligible. It is right that we should crack down on the real polluters. We are doing so in raising the maximum fine for statutory nuisance caused by industry from £2,000 to £20,000. But legislation should be flexible enough to exclude activities which benefit many but cause insignificant environmental harm. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 280 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 280A:
Page 82, line 35, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 282A. This amendment reflects a good deal of puzzlement in our minds as to the Government's intentions regarding the ways in which environmental health officers are supposed to enforce the statutory nuisance provisions in this part of the Bill.
Members of the Committee will recall that in discussing earlier parts of the Bill, we have not looked at the concept of best practicable means, which is included at subsection (8), but at the alternative formulations of BATNEEC—the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—which is the Government's preferred solution or the solution which we prefer and which the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution prefers; namely, the best practicable environmental option.
It may seem that those are merely words. However, it is interesting that having discussed this matter in Committee here and in another place, in Part III the Government have done what they threatened to do in Part I; namely, to retain the concept of best practicable means. That concept first entered into legislation in 1874. As one might expect of a concept which has been in existence for over 100 years, it has become ground down. It no longer has the necessary effectiveness. After one has been sharpening a knife for 116 years, one tends to gain in flexibility but lose in cutting power because the knife becomes too thin to sharpen any more.
Environmental health officers have been obliged to treat "best practicable means" as being an invitation not to enforce action against statutory nuisance but to negotiate with its perpetrators. In negotiation they have been obliged to consider such questions as: what is reasonably practicable? What is suitable with regard to local conditions and circumstances? What is possible with regard to the state of technical knowledge? Above all, and most dangerous, they have been obliged to consider what are the financial implications. Therefore, one tends to achieve not enforcement but compromise.
That is not the way in which we should be approaching statutory nuisance in 1990. It may not affect everyone, but those whom it affects are affected deeply. People who contact us because of floodlighting, burglar alarms ringing all night, emissions, noise from loud parties, fumes from motor vehicles or factories, or whatever, may not be a majority of the population but they are very angry people. They demand to be heard and the powers that they have evolved from legislation during the years are not adequate to protect them, otherwise they would not be so angry. I ask the Government why we are left with the 1874 formulation and why do we not have at least the BATNEEC formulation from Part I? Indeed, why do we not have the much better formulation of the best practicable environmental option which is preferred by Members on these Benches and by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 281.
Lord Renton: The expression "best practicable means", which is defined in Clause 76(8), occurs only in relation to the defence which is made available in Clause 77(7). As there is to be a defence that the best practicable means were used to prevent
1592
or counteract the effects of the nuisance, it is only right to define the expression. It is clearly defined and the important part is that:
"the test is to apply only so far as compatible with any duty imposed by law".
I appreciate what the noble Lord said, but I believe that the Government are right in having the definition where it is.
The Earl of Arran: I am grateful for my noble friend's closing remarks. Perhaps I may spend a few minutes trying to enlighten the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on our intentions. These amendments raise the important question of the concept used to determine what practical limits should be placed on the obligation of an industry, trade or business to take steps to minimise statutory nuisance.
It does look odd to have two different definitions of what is essentially the same concept in different parts of the Bill; that is best practicable means (bpm) in Part III, and best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) in Part I and Part VI. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Amendment No. 282A refers to yet another term of art; the best practicable environmental option (bpeo), which had its genesis in the 5th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution some 14 years ago.
Is there not, one might ask, a prime opportunity to do a bit of rationalisation and impose a standard definition throughout the Bill? We have looked very carefully at this, but have concluded, for reasons that I shall explain, that the apparently compelling argument for aligning the definitions is not so attractive when considered closely.
Best practicable means has been with us for a very long time. So far as we can tell, the term originated in a local law applying in Leeds in 1842—although the noble Lord said 1874—under which a fine could be imposed on offenders who had not used the best practicable means to prevent or abate smoke nuisance. Application of the term was progressively extended under the Alkali Acts and other provisions, including more recently the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Notes on best practicable means are published for a range of processes by HMIP and describe the treatment plant to be used and its maintenance, with methods of operation, and may also lay down presumptive limits for emissions. Bpm is an essentially dynamic concept, in that it can take account of advances in scientific understanding and pollution limits which can be tightened by HMIP to keep up with advances in abatement technology.
I rehearse this background because there is a great deal to be said for the maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We consulted widely about the working of bpm in 1986 and the consensus was that, although changes were desirable in some areas, on the whole bpm was well understood by environmental health officers and should be retained.
BATNEEC is a rather different animal. It is a formulation used in EC directives—in effect the Continental cousin of bpm. But it has no firm basis in case law in this country or elsewhere, and it

1593
applies to cross-media pollution issues such as are addressed by Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) rather than the essentially local, one-off problems that bpm has been used to tackle.
Bpeo specifies the pollution control technology which is the best practicable means for the environment as a whole—considering the total impact on water, land and air pathways together. It does not encompass a judgment about the cost implications of a particular pollution prevention or reduction strategy. This could mean that the bpeo for a particular industry could be so expensive as to be uneconomic.
The effect of Amendment No. 282A would be that the only defence a business could have in a statutory nuisance case brought against it under the relevant provisions of Clause 76 would be that it was using bpeo. It would remove the current defence enjoyed by businesses—including thousands of local small firms—that they were using the best practicable means to contain pollution as laid down by HMIP and its predecessor agencies. This would be a very serious step and I hope the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, understands our reasons for resisting this particular amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is certainly true that it would be a serious step; I do not deny that. But I am not convinced that the Government have shown in that reply a proper understanding of the balance between the need for proper continuity of response to those who are committing statutory nuisance. One must pity the sinner as well as the victim, and also consider the needs of those who are suffering from statutory nuisance.
The fact is that environmental health officers feel that they are acting with inadequate powers, and they spend a considerable amount of their time apologising to local residents for the inadequacy of their powers. One of the most difficult things is the accretion of interpretation of best practicable means, some of which is spelt out in Clause 76(8), which, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, applies to the whole of Part III of the Bill and not simply to Clause 77. Some of this ought to be dealt with by means of a definition which is more consistent with the rest of the Bill rather than just Part III. I will gladly give way.
Lord Renton: In view of what the noble Lord has just said, will he point out where else in this part of the Bill we find the expression "best practicable means", apart from Clause 77(7)? I cannot find any other reference to the phrase.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was relying on the indication in Clause 77(8):
"In this Part 'best practicable means' …"
I confess I have not carried out a trawl of Part III of the Bill. If the draftsman had meant Clause 77(7) rather than this part of the Bill, I assume that he would have said so. It may be as well for me to withdraw that comment and study Part III of the Bill rather more closely. With those words I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 82, line 40, at end insert ("to the person responsible, and the size of any business conducted on the premises.").
The noble Lord said: I am getting badly out of my depth. I have great sympathy with the belief of my noble friend Lord Renton that this part of the Bill should be dealt with tomorrow. Some remarks have been made which give one quite a lot to think about, not least those of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on his Amendment No. 271A.
The noble Lord was speaking of physical well-being. He did not define it; he almost got down to the fact that it was peace of mind and spiritual well-being. I do not think he or I would wish to enter into that debate tonight, especially in the absence of any right reverend Prelate. He was getting into a deep subject and we should perhaps look at the matter more clearly another time.
I raise that matter before turning to my amendment because I shall now deal with the completely opposite side of the picture, which, although not entirely supported by the Minister in response to the noble Lord's previous amendment, was slightly supported. I am a little lost tonight and feel that we are in fairly deep water.
Amendment No. 281 poses the question of whether the expression "best practicable means" takes into account the size and profitability of the business. I take as an example the small farmer, though similar situations will occur in relation to other small businesses such as those referred to by my noble friend. A problem will arise where the best practicable means for preventing a statutory nuisance for a large business could cost a relatively small amount in relation to that business but for a small business—I have in mind the family farm, but other small businesses would be in the same position—it would be impractical and might put the owner out of business, as my noble friend said in the debate on the previous amendment.
I therefore ask my noble friend whether "best practicable means" could be sensitive to the varying conditions between businesses. It is a Catch-22 situation. If my noble friend replies that "best practicable means" does not allow for sensitivity in size and profitability, it will be another nail in the coffin of the small business or the family farm; if the answer is the opposite, the neighbour to that business will not appreciate that the small farmer's pigs do not constitute a statutory nuisance though they smell as much as the large farmer's pigs.
I am muddled and should like some guidance on this complex matter. It is rather late to imbibe all that has been said. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Clauses 77(7) and 79(5) provide that it shall be a defence to prove that the best practicable means have been used to prevent or to counteract the effects of a nuisance. This defence is available in the case of nuisances arising on industrial, trade or business premises and smoke nuisances arising from chimney emissions.

1595
The purpose of Clause 78(8) is to define how the term "best practicable means" is to be interpreted. In particular, subparagraph (a) lists matters to which regard is to be had in deciding what is reasonably practicable. My noble friend wishes to add to this list and proposes there should be specific requirement for regard to be had to the person responsible and to the size of any business conducted on the premises.
In reply, I would say that the best practicable means definition in Clause 78(8)—which is derived from that employed for the noise provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and has stood the test of time well—has the merit of simplicity and flexibility and does not attempt to spell out every conceivable matter to which regard must be had. Subparagraph (a) lists certain matters to which regard is to be had but in doing so it includes the expression "amongst other things". The expression is certainly wide enough to enable a court to take into account the matters to which my noble friend refers in his amendment. As I have indicated, it may be an old and well-tried definition. But it has been around for years and there is no evidence that the terminology has caused problems for particular types of businesses.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: As I understand it, my noble friend is saying that the courts will be sensitive. I shall read very carefully what he has said. But if that is what he is saying, then it is what I want him to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 282 and 282ZA not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 76, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I gave notice to my noble friends on the Front Bench and to the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, that I wish to make various comments on Clause 76. At the foot of page 80 of the Bill the clause begins by stating that,
"the following matters constitute 'statutory nuisances' for the purposes of this Part".
That is a reference to Part III of the Bill. Therefore, surprise, surprise! When we come to subsections (2) and (3), the Bill has to be dovetailed with the Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968. I should disclose that when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power I helped to pilot the Clean Air Act 1956 through another place so I have some recollection of what it does. I have also refreshed my memory.
Clause 76(1) is all right from the drafting point of view, but subsection (2) states that,
"Subsection (1)(b) above does not apply to"—
various things such as—
"(i) smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling within a smoke control area".
That immediately raises a contradiction with the Clean Air Act. It is arguable that if we are going to legislate to bring the Clean Air Act up to date we should be making the whole country into a smoke-control area so that nobody is allowed to
1596
produce dark smoke from a chimney. I remind the Committee that subsection (1)(b) refers to,
"smoke emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance".
We are then told in subsection (2)(i) that,
"smoke emitted from a chimney of a private dwelling within a smoke control area"
is not a statutory nuisance. That is what the Clean Air Act 1956 was all about. I am critical in particular of subsection (2)(iv) which states:
"dark smoke emitted otherwise than as mentioned above from industrial or trade premises".
That is not a statutory nuisance either. I am merely complaining of the drafting. I feel very sorry for the draftsman at various parts of this Bill. He must have been under great pressure of time. He must have had elaborate instructions for drafting: it is a wonder he got it all down. As he has got it down, we might as well try to help him and others to get it right. For example, I suggest that subsection (3) could perfectly well read:
"Subsection (1)(c) applies only to private dwellings".
Instead it has a double negative and reads:
"Subsection (1)(c) above does not apply in relation to premises other than private dwellings".
That is not the best way to legislate. If we want the Bill to be a success it has to be read and, we hope, obeyed by ordinary people.
My problem with the presentation of the clause does not end there. Halfway down page 82 of the Bill we find:
"any expressions used in this section and in the Clean Air Act 1956 or the Clean Air Act 1968 have the same meaning in this section as in that Act"—
it should read "as in either of those Acts"—
"and section 34(2) of the Clean Air Act 1956 shall apply for the interpretation of the expression "dark smoke".
That is good. But I wonder whether my noble friends' study of the Bill—I know that they have had so much work to do on it—has enabled them to go forward to page 198 and Schedule 13 where various amendments are made to existing enactments.
In paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 13 we find that the Clean Air Act is excluded for prescribed purposes. There is an amendment to the Clean Air Act purporting to achieve that purpose. I wonder whether my noble friends can tell me how that exclusion links up with Clause 76 of the Bill. I need not worry the Committee with paragraph 6 which deals with ordinary minor amendments. However, we need to have an explanation because, with such experience as I have, I just cannot find how we can reconcile subsection (1) of Clause 76, subsection (2) of the same clause and paragraph 5 of Schedule 13.
If my noble friends say that at this time of night they and their advisers cannot be expected to give a rational and full answer to the various questions that I am endeavouring to put, I shall understand. But at some time we must have an explanation. I hope that even at this late hour we may have one.
The Earl of Arran: I shall do my best. I am not absolutely certain that I shall be able to put to bed all my noble friend's concerns but perhaps an answer to a few of them will suffice at this time of night.

1597
He has my firm assurance that I shall most certainly write to him to explain more comprehensively the points on which he has anxieties.
The Clean Air Acts are our main legislation covering pollution by smoke, grit and dust from domestic and certain industrial sources. Nothing in Part III of the Bill essentially alters this legislation. My noble friend will be aware that Clause 76(2) spells out that Part III does not apply to smoke emitted from a private dwelling in a smoke control area under the Clean Air Acts. Dark smoke is also covered by regulations under the 1956 Act. Part III of the Bill relates to other matters. However, I appreciate that my noble friend is concerned to ensure that there is no conflict between this part and the Clean Air Acts. I can assure my noble friend that there is no such conflict and that the two sets of controls dovetail satisfactorily. Furthermore, Part I is intended to cover emissions from major polluting sources; that is, petro-chemical industries, large combustion plants such as electricity generating plants, and so on.
Processes scheduled for integrated pollution control under Part I emissions, such as smoke and dust, which otherwise might cause a statutory nuisance will be caught by the strenuous system of controls. If a process is not scheduled for IPC, it will be subject, like any other potential source of statutory nuisance, to the controls of Part III. Simply put, Clause 76 is extended from processes prescribed for control under Part I.
That reply may not have covered all my noble friend's anxieties, but, as I said, I shall certainly be writing to him to explain more fully.
12.45 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to detain the Committee. If the noble Earl is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should be grateful for a copy of the letter.
The Earl of Arran: Yes, of course.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to my noble friend for his valiant attempt to explain the contradictions. The day after tomorrow—it cannot be sooner—I shall read in Hansard what my noble friend said. I may have to return to the matter on Report because it seems to me that subsection (2), even with the explanation given, is unnecessary nonsense. I shall reserve my opinion until I have read my noble friend's reply. Meanwhile, I no longer resist the proposition that Clause 76 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Summary proceedings for statutory nuisances]:
[Amendment No. 282A not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 282B:
Page 85, line 15, at end insert—
("(4A) An authority may make such reasonable requests for information of the owner or occupier of premises, or any person who is or appears to be causing a nuisance, and that person shall comply with such requests").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B. These are relatively simple amendments. They deal with requests from local authorities to have the enforcement powers they consider to be necessary. Again, this is not a matter of local authority officers taking on paramilitary roles, having uniforms, or anything of that sort. However, it appears to the local authorities that when they have to request information from persons appearing to cause nuisances, or the occupiers of premises from which nuisances are being emitted (if that is the right construction) they should have power to see that the persons concerned comply with the request. That is the purport of Amendment No. 282B.
Amendment No. 283A simply adds to what they may take away under Schedule 3. In addition to samples, they may take away equipment and that seems to be a logical extension of the powers already provided in Schedule 3. Amendment No. 283B is again a matter of compliance with reasonable requests for information from people in occupation of premises to which entry has been sought. These are practical requests made on the ground by those with experience of enforcing the statutory nuisance legislation. I hope they will be received sympathetically by the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: First, I take Amendments Nos. 282B and 283B. We do not consider that local authorities need these powers in addition to the powers of entry and inspection provided by Schedule 3. It would be wrong to provide further powers which could require a person to provide information that might be self-incriminating. Statutory nuisance relates to fairly simple matters such as smoke, smell or dust, and local authorities have all the inspection and information gathering powers they need. The tradition of statutory nuisance enshrined in legislation, which dates back many years, has been that it is for the local authority using its powers of entry as necessary to establish whether a nuisance exists.
The noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 283A, seeks to ensure that an authorised officer who has entered premises under the powers conferred in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 may take away not only such samples or articles as he considers necessary for the discharge of any of the local authority's functions under Part III but also equipment. It is arguable whether the term "articles" used in subparagraph (4)(c) of paragraph 2 includes equipment. We are prepared to consider whether an amendment of the provision is needed to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that last comment. I shall, therefore, withdraw Amendment No. 282B with a good deal more alacrity than I shall show in not moving Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I do not believe that he will have satisfied those who have the day-to-day responsibility for enforcement of this legislation. I fear that an opportunity has been lost. However, in order to consider the matter further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 283 not moved.]
Clause 78 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Statutory Nuisances: Supplementary Provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 283A and 283B not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 154, line 19, at end insert:
("Statement of right of appeal in notices
6. Where an appeal against a notice served by a local authority lies to a magistrates' court by virtue of section 77 of this Act, it shall be the duty of the authority to include in such a notice a statement indicating that such an appeal lies as aforesaid and specifying the time within which it must be brought.").
The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I move Amendment No. 284. At the same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 285. I must tell the Minister that I have had sight of the correspondence which has passed between him and the noble Lord. Having read it, I respectfully submit that the arguments contained in his letter of 20th June appear to a legal authority that I intend to quote to be fundamentally flawed.
The legal adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said:
"I accept the view of the court in Bentham, relating to Section 94(2) of the Public Health Act 1936. Proceedings under that subsection are criminal because the magistrates' court has the option of imposing a fine.
However, the structure of proceedings under Sections 58 and 59 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and Clauses 77 to 79 of the EPB is entirely different from that under Section 94(2) of the Public Health Act 1936. Under both Section 39(2) and Clause 79(2) of the Environmental Protection Bill the person aggrieved makes a complaint to the magistrates' court. If the court is satisfied that a nuisance exists or is likely to recur it must make a nuisance order which requires the defendant to abate the nuisance and/or prohibits its recurrence. If, but only if, the defendant contravenes that order without reasonable excuse, does he commit an offence: Section 59(4) and Clause 79(4).
The procedure under Section 99 of the Public Health Act 1936 is different, in that the magistrates' court may impose a fine in addition to making the nuisance order: Section 94(2) of the Public Health Act 1936. The power to impose a fine under Section 99 proceedings means that they are criminal and must accordingly be commenced by way of information: Northern Ireland Trailers Limited v. County Borough of Preston (1972) 1 All ER 260; R. v. Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt (1971) 1 All ER 839 at 842. See also R. v. Inner London Crown Court, ex parte Bentham (1989).
Conversely, proceedings under Section 59(2) of the Control of Pollution Act and Clause 79(2) of the Environmental Protection Bill do not empower the court to impose a fine at the stage where the abatement order is made. The proceedings are therefore civil.
Appeals under Clause 77(3) to the magistrates' court against an Abatement Notice served by the local authority are clearly
1600
civil proceedings. An appeal under this clause has no relationship with the criminal proceedings envisaged by Clause 77(4) and (5). There is an equivalent procedure for appeals against noise abatement notices under Section 58(3) Control of Pollution Act 1974. Appeals lie from the magistrates' court to the Crown Court under Section 85(1). However, there is no comparable right of appeal against an abatement notice under Part III Public Health Act 1936.
If the right of appeal to the Crown Court is not included in the Environmental Protection Bill, the only avenue of appeal will be by way of case stated to the Queen's Bench Division. In view of the pressures on the higher courts such a move would appear to be undesirable".
That is why I move the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I believe that I can be short on both amendments. Amendment No. 284 is acceptable to the Government. Amendment No. 285 raises a complex legal issue that we need to explore further, but in the meantime we are happy to consider it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am more than grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 285 not moved.]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Summary proceedings by persons aggrieved by statutory nuisances]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 285A:
Page 85, line 30, leave out ("a complaint made") and insert ("an information laid").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 285B, 285C, 285D, 286A and 286B. Clause 79 has attracted the greatest amount of correspondence—for me at any rate—on the Bill other than the proposals for the NCC and dog registration. I say straightaway that the representations that have been made to me come from both sides of a dispute which is clearly an anguished one in parts of the country. Many members of tenants' associations and tenants' associations themselves have written to me expressing great concern that the provisions of Clause 79 take away the rights of tenants under the 1936 Act to take direct action in the courts to deal with repairs of damage to their property which amounts to a statutory nuisance. They say that Clause 79 has been drafted to weaken that right. It is an important part of their protection against landlords, and although the protection against landlords that was intended in 1936 was protection against private landlords, it is now much more against local authority landlords. That is one side of the case.
The other side of the case was put to me by local authorities, which are finding that under the 1936 Act tenants and their lawyers are using the provisions of that Act not merely to go to court—the local authorities do not complain about that—but to go to court without informing the local authority landlord that the repairs are necessary. The local authorities say—it is an allegation that I repeat for what it is worth—that there are lawyers who are doing that rather than seeking redress for the repairs because

1601
of the order for costs in their favour that they will obtain when they go to court.
It is difficult to find an amendment which will reconcile those points of view. I have considered the representations made to me and there are two outstanding points. First, it is wrong that complaints should be made to the courts without the local authority being notified and being given an opportunity to put matters right before court proceedings are taken. Otherwise we shall land up in the position where more money is being spent on court costs than on the repairs. Therefore I propose in Amendment No. 285B that there shall be,
"reasonable notice in accordance with subsection (1B) below specifying the nuisance and requiring the same to be remedied",
served on the landlord or the person to whom the rent is normally paid. Since it is extremely difficult to calculate the reasonable period of notice—I am certainly not capable of doing so—we put on to the Secretary of State in subsection (1B) the responsibility of specifying the form and period of any notice by regulation. It is a trick which the Government have played many times and I am sure that they will not object to my shuffling off the responsibility on this occasion. I have no doubt that precedents are available to the Government and the department which are not available to me to determine what is useful.
That is one side of it. The other side of it is that there must be an obligation on the local authority. In other words, if notice has been served and the ability to go to the courts should not be taken away, the local authority or the other landlord must be obliged to take action as fast as is reasonably practicable to put things right.
The object of the exercise is not to take away the rights of tenants under this legislation but to ensure that those rights are exercised responsibly by giving notice to the landlord and giving a reasonable time for the matter to be put right before it goes to court. I do not know whether it is possible in the time that we have had to do this, to get the final form of words right, but I hope that the Government will recognise that we seek a reasonable balance on a very controversial issue. I hope that the Government will indicate that they understand the reasoning behind this and will aim for the same objective as ourselves. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may take first Amendments Nos. 285A and 285C. Amendment No. 285A appears to be a paving amendment for Amendment No. 285C. We suggest that the latter amendment is both misconceived and unnecessary. It is misconceived because it would insert provision for a fine at a stage in the proceedings when the matter before the court is whether a nuisance order should be made. An offence is not committed unless the requirements of the nuisance order are contravened or not complied with. The amendment is unnecessary because subsection (4) makes provisions as to penalties for such an offence.
On Amendment No. 285B, we understand the concern of local authorities that local authority
1602
tenants should be required to give notice to them before making a complaint to the magistrates' court in respect of housing defects alleged to constitute a statutory nuisance.
We are also aware of the judgment in the Sandwell v. Bujok case, which was that a local authority tenant has the right to go direct to court without first informing his landlord that a repair is needed and allowing time for it to be undertaken. One of the main arguments of the local authority in the Bujok case was that under the existing legislation in the 1936 Act, where proceedings are brought under Section 99, the effect of Section 94(3) is that, if it is proved that the nuisance existed or was likely to recur at the date of the making of the complaint, the court must make an order for costs in favour of the informant. There is no such automatic entitlement to costs under Clause 79. The normal discretionary rules on costs will apply.
In our view the new statutory nuisance code will remove any case there might have been for mandatory notice to be given to the person responsible for a nuisance before summary proceedings are commenced for a nuisance order. We consider that to impose such a requirement would complicate unduly what should be a simple and accessible procedure. In awarding costs a court can take account of the effort made by the complainant to identify the property owner (no trivial matter in some private sector cases), the notice given to the defendant and whether the nuisance existed at the time of the complaint.
We also understand that the local authority will usually have been informed that a complaint has been made, if the tenant has not given it any earlier notice. In the time lag that normally occurs between the making of a complaint and the court hearing it will have a period in which to rectify the nuisance.
We are happy to consider the proposal in Amendment No. 285D. Amendment No. 286A would provide for the mandatory award of costs to the complainant if it is proved that the nuisance existed or was likely to recur at the date of the laying of the information. We are not in favour of such a provision. Under Clauses 77 and 79, the normal discretionary rules on costs would apply. The Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1973 gives the court inherent jurisdiction to award costs in such cases, and we are advised that a court would not unreasonably refuse to do so. As regards Amendment No. 286B, we are certainly willing to consider the position.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a complex answer which deserves careful study. I am grateful to the noble Earl for referring to the Sandwell case. As he well appreciated, it was behind a number of my amendments. I am grateful for the understanding with which he has approached two at least of my amendments. It may well be possible to bring back the others in a form which would meet the Government's requirements and still meet the undoubtedly conflicting interests of those who have been in touch with us. We have never sought to reflect the views of those who make representations to us blindly, but we have sought to reach a reasonable compromise which reflects the

1603
conflicting interests of landlord and tenant. We shall read the noble Earl's reply with great attention before we decide in what form to bring our amendments back. As regards the amendments that the Minister is willing to consider sympathetically, we would welcome an opportunity to talk to him about them between now and a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 285B to 285D not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 85, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) Where more than one person is responsible for a statutory nuisance, subsections (1) to (3) above shall apply to each of those persons whether or not what any one of them is responsible for would by itself amount to a nuisance.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 286 adds to Clause 79 a provision covering the situation where nuisances are caused by more than one person. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 286A and 286B not moved.]
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Termination of Public Health Act controls over offensive trades etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 87, line 24, at end insert ("or business").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I wish to move Amendment No. 287 which is a minor technical amendment. It adds a reference to "business", being the Scottish equivalent of the term "trade" which is used for England and Wales, at the end of subsection (2) of Clause 81. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes past one o'clock.