Environmental Protection Bill (Hansard, 8 October 1990)

HL Deb 08 October 1990 vol 522 cc19-72 19

§ 3.41 p.m.

§ Report received.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

§ ("Carbon Dioxide emissions

§ —(1) Any regulations made under this Part in respect of limits on emissions of carbon dioxide shall have the purpose of securing levels of total annual emissions by 31st December 2000 not greater than the levels of such emissions as measured in 1990 in the United Kingdom.

§ (2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement as to the date before 3Ist December 2000 at which he expects actual reductions in total emission levels in any calendar year to commence").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in welcoming noble Lords back to proceedings on the 20 Environmental Protection Bill, I remind the House that a very considerable part of our proceedings in Committee were conducted to the refrain, "Wait for the White Paper" or wait until we know the Government's intentions about the broader environmental issues which were and are so inadequately treated in the Bill.

§ I say straightaway that I welcome the White Paper. I welcome it from an aesthetic point of view. However, as the House will expect, I welcome it less from a political point of view. The White Paper is very beautiful. It is very heavy. It sits on a well-constructed coffee table with considerable grace. It has some very beautiful pictures culled from many of the environmental pressure groups and societies which have expressed such strong opposition to the contents of the White Paper since seeing its terms.

§ When we considered this matter in Committee we were in danger of our deliberations being overtaken by events. What has happened is that our deliberations have been overtaken by a non-event. In almost every single respect in which we looked for decision and action and a lead from the Government in a paper on environmental protection, our expectations have been disappointed. I remind the House that the White Paper on environmental protection was produced fully two years after the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society in which she announced her conversion to green politics.

§ It will not surprise your Lordships to learn that the purpose of a very considerable number of amendments tabled by the Opposition is an attempt to make the White Paper work. It is the purpose of these amendments to make the intentions and the noble statements contained in the White Paper actually stick. The amendments are intended to put some force behind the provisions. It is essential to do that not because it is a good political ploy to get in first before the Government but because they have made it clear that they are not going to get in at all.

§ We read in this morning's newspapers that there will be some environmental legislation from the department in the next Session. I do not know whether that is true, but I certainly welcome the idea that there will be legislation in the next Session to improve the siting and appearance of farm buildings and the restoration of old mineral workings. That is what we understand is to be added, from a green point of view, to the department's legislative programme in the next Session.

§ However, it can hardly be said that that is an effective response to the challenges which the Government recognise in their White Paper. In what is bound to be the Government's last full Session of this Parliament and what may well be its last Session in any event, it can hardly be said that they are doing anything at all to fulfil the objectives of the protection of the national, local and global environment which were so admirably set forth by the Prime Minister in her speech two years ago.

§ The time has come not to take refuge in future statements from Government but to seek to ensure 21 that the objectives that we all share for the protection and enhancement of the environment, insofar as they reflect the responsibilities of Government, feature in the legislation, action and resources provided to those who have to carry out that environmental protection and improvement. That is the purpose of the series of amendments on which we embark this afternoon.

§ The first amendment is perhaps the most important in global terms as it concerns all the threats to the environment which face us. I refer to emissions of carbon dioxide. It is common ground (is it not?) that carbon dioxide emissions account for approximately 50 per cent. of all causes of global warming and the greenhouse effect. Yet, when we look at the White Paper and the very clear description of the horrors which will affect the globe if no action is taken to deal with the greenhouse effect, we find that all of the suggestions that have been made for dealing with that and, in particular, emissions of carbon dioxide, are not in the text of the White Paper at all. They have been relegated to Annexe C of the White Paper. All the proposals so bravely put forward by Professor David Pearce a year ago are not in the Government's proposals. They are referred to almost in passing in Annexe C. What has happened to carbon taxes? What has happened to tradeable permits and commitments to more energy efficient uses of transport, particularly the encouragement of public transport? What has happened to the implementation of land use planning to encourage energy conservation? None of these issues appears in the White Paper or in the Bill.

§ I believe that the minimum obligation that your Lordships have is to make a serious attempt to make the Bill reflect the Government's admirable statements of principle and to reflect them in a way which they clearly have no intention of doing either in this Bill or in their subsequent legislative programme. In practical terms, when discussing carbon dioxide emissions in this amendment, we are proposing that emissions permitted under regulations to be laid down by the Secretary of State shall have the purpose of securing levels of total annual emissions by 31st December 2000 not greater than the levels of such emissions as measured in 1990. The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement as to how he expects this reduction to be achieved and the timetable for it.

§ The purpose of Part I of the Bill is to introduce a system of integrated pollution control. Since the Bill was considered in Committee it has been extremely disappointing to learn that the introduction of integrated pollution control is not even to start until 1992 and that the timescale for its introduction is going to be phased until 1996. By that year we shall be a good way towards the Government's own targets in connection with the reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases. The timescale now offered to the House is different to the one we were offered in Committee. It is totally inadequate for the purposes which the Government themselves acknowledge in their own White Paper. The whole of the integrated pollution control procedures are designed to deal with industrial carbon dioxide emissions. However, it is well known that such emissions account 22 for only 30 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. The Bill is addressing only one part of the problem which is before this country and the world.

§ We have to include realistic measures. We have to include measures which are realistic not only in terms of their achievement—there is a good deal of agreement on that—but also in terms of the effect they will have on global warming. It is no use relying on others—the European Community, the United Nations or any other organisation—to make these provisions for us. It is no use waiting until others make the formulations. In terms of emissions, we are among the countries which cause most damage in the world we are certainly one of the most damaging countries in the European Community. As such, we have a responsibility to take a lead. What is proposed in the amendment is that we should take a lead by giving some teeth to the Bill and by giving teeth to this country's environmental programme. At the moment, neither has any teeth. I beg to move.

§ Lord Hampton
My Lords, I support the amendment which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It sets out to limit the emission of CO₂, by the year 2000 rather than by the Government's stated target in the White Paper of 2005. It is a modest amendment which I hope will be accepted as a step in the right direction.
This issue deals with one of the fundamentals of the environmental debate. I refer to the release of CO₂, into the atmosphere and the resultant environmental damage and global warming. It is a global problem. Carbon dioxide emissions are rising steeply, exacerbated by increasing energy use, the industrialisation of the developing world and the accelerating pace of deforestation. A real cut in global emissions must be our target. We in the developed world, where 80 per cent. of the greenhouse gases arise, have a special responsibility. Carbon dioxide emissions, the White Paper suggests, are growing at a rate of 0.4 per cent. each year, with all that that entails by way of global warming. My party recommends a target for reduction to a global ceiling of 300 billion tonnes by 2100.
In the section of the White Paper entitled "Action" comes this statement: The Government believes that this generation has a duty to act to meet the threat of global warming". We all no doubt welcome that. However, the White Paper goes on to say: Britain has proposed that the best way to act on global warming is through an international framework convention setting a broad strategy". International action is vital, as are international targets for emission reductions, but British action should not be dependent on this. The White Paper states that, if other countries take similar action, Britain is prepared to reduce CO₂, emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2005. That stipulation illustrates the Government's low level of commitment to this problem.
The White Paper goes on to state: Unilateral action by Britain would do little to influence global warming". 23 It would, however, establish the principle that Britain takes the matter very seriously and believes not just in words and sentiments but also in action. We strongly support the amendment.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I should like to refer, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh has done, to the White Paper. I was perhaps privileged—and certainly intrigued—to debate sections of the White Paper with the Secretary of State just last week. He is obviously a very uncomfortable man. I sympathise very deeply with him because the publication of the White Paper is a defeat for the Secretary of State on virtually every factor that he has included in it. He has been defeated by his Cabinet colleagues. At the meeting the Secretary of State referred to us living in a plural society. The answer to that is that he lives in a plural government and a plural party. He has been defeated by the Prime Minister. Once again the Prime Minister spoke with one voice two years ago but when it came to action she shied away and apparently lost interest. Now that she has gathered the trophies, she has lost interest in the practicality of this country, and her government in this country, giving a lead.
The issue contained in the amendment is one of the signs of the process that has been taking place over the past two years. It is a modest amendment. It does not go so far as a number of our partners in the European Community have gone. I should like the Minister who is to reply to the debate, and whom I welcome to the Front Bench in her new guise, to answer two questions. Why cannot the British Government show as clear and as radical a recognition of the problem of carbon dioxide emissions and its relation to global warming as other countries in Europe? Carbon dioxide is not simply emitted into the atmosphere today but stays there a very long time. The carbon dioxide emitted in the year 1990 will be there in the middle of the next century and will have its effect. There will be a cumulative effect between now and then, just as there has been over the past century. This has been caused largely by the operations of the industrialised community. Is it not therefore the case that, on all the showing of the major scientists in the world who have now virtually agreed about global warming, it is necessary to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide from their 1990 height rather than to stabilise them, as the Government propose to do, in 15 years' time? Is it not the case that, with emissions even at the present level, still less at the level projected by the Minister of Transport and by the Prime Minister in her "great car" economy, global warming will continue at an exponential rate, with all the consequences which have been vividly outlined by the major scientists of the world?
I should like the Minister to answer those two questions. I hope that in the light of what has been said she will be prepared to accept this modest amendment, which does not go so far as what has been stated by the major scientists of the world as essential if global warming is even to be slowed down.

§ Lord Parry
My Lords, in rising to support the amendment so ably put before us it is necessary for me to state that, while I am chairman of the Tidy Britain group and am anxiously involved in a number of other environmental organisations, what I have to say does not necessarily represent that group, although it probably does. I enthusiastically support the amendment because I believe it is necessary for the Government at this early stage to indicate now that they are prepared to listen to voices that place greater importance on certain aspects of what they propose than they seem to do themselves.
My attitude to the White Paper is that, like many good and worthy documents, its analysis and diagnosis are excellent. It is to be welcomed for the fact that it places firmly on the national agenda matters that concern us all. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh has indicated, it does so in a manner that is bright and attractive and is therefore more likely to be read. Those of us who have accepted the discipline of reading the document over the past week—that is, since we first had access to copies of it—will have been impressed by their mental effort in reading 700 pages. I am quite certain that others will have taken the short cut offered by the package which included a crib sheet, whereby it would be possible for people to be present and to debate here in the House on the basis of the White Paper as though they were in fact discussing that document. We are not doing so; but we shall have that opportunity and we shall be able to move from the diagnosis to the recommendations and finally to the cure.
I wish to state that, while I enthusiastically commend the diagnosis, I must say that there is a suspicion that the will to spend on the necessary cure is not as strong as that regarding the diagnosis of the ailments. It gives the impression that, while the Minister's intention may have been to proceed immediately from recognising the ills to curing them, he was met along the way by a Treasury refusal to fund or find the means of funding some of the cures which are immediately necessary.
Noble Lords will remember that it was a Welshman —namely, Lloyd George, the last Liberal Prime Minister and ultimately a Member of this House as the Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor—who said that he once sat looking at a shiver moving up and down the Treasury Benches seeking a spine up which to travel. It is quite often the case that governments have intentions which are totally defeated by the Treasury's hold on the purse strings.
Therefore, it would be a good indication from this House if, in the various amendments which are brought forward, we all honestly recognise that they are necessary and if, just occasionally, the Government said, "We shall accept this amendment because we believe that it will show that our resolve as a government is stronger perhaps than the Treasury's resolve to fund it". I support the amendment.

§ 4 p.m.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, like my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Parry, I believe that this debate and many others must be seen against the backcloth of the publication of the glossy White Paper. I wholly agreed with the editorial contained in the Financial Times of 26th September, part of which said: It is therefore hardly surprising that the result is a 296-page illustrated brochure whose saving grace is that it is printed on recycled paper, and whose principal virtue is that it is comprehensive. It dwells mainly on proposals previously enacted or announced; when it comes to plans for the future the best that can be said is that it is a compendium of muted declarations of hesitant intent. Apart from an important new Bill on planning, there is no new legislation in it. In advance of the conclusion of the current round of departmental negotiations on public spending there can be no new money in it. WI ere there are fresh policies, such as for tests of vehicle emissions, these are new to Britain, but not to many comparable countries". I think that those words need to be taken into account in the debates that we shall have, not simply in relation to this Bill but also in relation to many environmental debates over the course of the next year. The amendment is of fundamental importance because in a sense it tests the credibility of the Government's proposals. I suggest, as did my noble friend Lord McIntosh, that in that test the Government fail immediately.
Let us consider one or two reasons for that situation. First, there is the whole question of conditionality as regards the Government performing their obligations to stabilise emission levels of carbon dioxide at 1990 volumes by the year 2005. I suggest that that is wholly inadequate. However, what is the meaning of this condition which is imported? We are told that other countries have to agree to adopt these measures. But which are these other countries? Does it concern one other country, or are there two of them? Further, what are the criteria by which the Government will make their judgment upon such matters in relation to the performance by other countries? Why should we set this proviso? Why should we not adopt that which eight other European countries have adopted, including Germany, France and Sweden? If these countries can do it, why can we not do so? In my view that is a question of fundamental importance which the Minister should answer, especially against a background of constant obfuscation on the part of the Government over many years to hold up legislation in the European Community about this and, indeed, many other issues.
Why is it that the Government do not indicate very clearly, as they should, when setting a target, how they intend to go about meeting that target? The White Paper is full of pleas and arguments about urging industry to perform; but it is very short on the wherewithal. There is no target in the White Paper for reducing energy. There are no minimum standards for energy efficiency as regards household appliances. There are no effective policies to switch subsidy from roads to public transport.
I turn now to the much heralded appointment of Professor Pearce. I believe that it was an excellent 26 appointment. I also believe that the ideas he adumbrated were first-class. Of course, one may have certain qualifications about them but, overall, that was the view I took about them. What has happened to him? He has almost disappeared from sight. He has done so because Mr. Patten has lost battle after battle in the Cabinet against those formidable foes, Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Wakeham. Against that background we are told that we should take comfort in the fact that this Committee of Ministers is there assembled in all its array and is determined to ensure that environmental progress is made in each of the departments. I suspect that those Ministers are there more as watchdogs than anything else they are watchdogs to ensure that Mr. Patten does not make too much progress in conflict with their own designs, some of which are completely contradictory to the purpose of achieving a good environment.
In my view the Minister ought to reply to the questions which have been posed by my noble friends and myself. I hope that she will be able to do so. I hope that her brief will permit her to do so. I say that because these are vital issues which test the credit and credibility of the Government.

§ Lord Ross of Newport
My Lords, these amendments are very relevant at this particular time because, as we know, only this weekend the Thames Barrier was raised to protect some parts of the upper reaches of the Thames from possible flooding. There were very high tides this weekend. We know what happened in North Wales earlier this year and how those people have still not recovered from the disaster which hit them. We also know that East Anglia is equally vulnerable.
The year 2000 appears as a target for the Energy Efficiency Office to save fuel by the use of heat and power. That is the target set by the Government. Therefore, why can we not have the same consideration in respect of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the main offender; indeed, over 50 per cent. of global warming arises from the emission of carbon dioxide. There is one aspect of the matter upon which I think every expert is convinced; that is, that if we do not tackle this problem now, then we are in for real trouble in the years ahead. That trouble may be much closer than many people realise.
Our outgoing ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell, who I believe may have had some hand in writing the Prime Minister's speech a few years ago, is one of those people who is totally and utterly convinced on the matter. Indeed, he was most convincing in this respect when he appeared on television some time ago. I very much hope that the Government will at least listen on this occasion and that they will accept the amendment proposed.

The Earl of Balfour
My Lords, before we leave the point I feel that a few words must be said from these Benches. Amendment No. 1 could be achieved if we were to restrict the number of cars on the roads and the amount of power we were allowed to use in our houses. That is not something that should be done now by the Government. On those grounds, I cannot support the amendment.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, opened with comments about the White Paper. It is important to note that it is the first and most comprehensive document of its kind issued by any government. It is important to recognise its achievements. It covers the whole of our environment and sets out clear principles. It has been generally welcomed. It states clear priorities and a whole range of measures, of which the noble Lord was kind enough to mention just two.
What about the commitment to improve our air quality with more reliance on standards and substantial expenditure; for example, the £28 billion of investment in water and £6 billion investment in new power plant? The White Paper establishes for the first time a firm base for further action, especially the strong system for considering the environment by the whole of government. As is well known, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will chair the committee, which will include a senior minister from every department, four of them of Cabinet rank, and which will have a commitment to produce regular reports.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the White Paper as a glossy document. The one thing it is not, is a glossy document. No one can dispute that the Government take seriously the issue of climate change. Indeed, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke at the United Nations General Assembly last year, the theme of her speech was a call on all nations to play their part in a global response to this global problem. Last May, at the opening of the new Hadley Centre for Climate Research, my right honourable friend announced that, provided others are ready to take their full share, the United Kingdom is prepared to set itself the demanding target of returning our emissions of carbon dioxide to their 1990 levels by 2005. Taken together with the agreement in the Montreal Protocol to phase out the use of CFCs, and other actions on greenhouse gas emissions, we expect that that would reduce the global warming potential of the UK's emissions by 20 per cent. in 2005 compared to 1990 levels. It is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned that the emissions are growing by 0.4 per cent., but the figure includes taking that into account as well as returning to the 1990 level.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is similar to others which were debated at earlier stages of this Bill both here and in another place. As I have explained, the Government's position is clear. We recognise that, despite the uncertainties in our understanding of the science of climate change which remain, it is right that all nations should begin to take actions now which are justified for the other benefits they will bring. The aims we have set ourselves are the result of careful analysis which seeks to balance our environmental concerns with an appreciation of what is possible and realistic, and with the need to maintain the economic development which pays for environmental protection. The target of stabilizing 28 CO₂ emissions at present levels by 2000 would impose severe costs on the economy and individuals through the higher energy prices which would be needed, to say nothing of its impact on the coal industry. The Liberal Democrats' reported targets of a 30 per cent. reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2005 and a 75 per cent. reduction by 2050 could be met only through a massive expansion of nuclear power and severe restrictions on the use of private cars.
We have set out in more detail in the White Paper on the environment measures which will contribute towards the achievement of that target. They are too numerous to list, but cover fields such as energy efficiency, the promotion of renewable energy sources, and initiatives in the European Community to promote consumer labelling for electrical appliances and improve the fuel consumption of vehicles. In short, we have accompanied our target with a clear statement of the initial measures necessary to achieve it.
Much is sometimes made of the supposed differences between our commitment and the targets announced by some other countries in the European Community. In truth, they are often what are called "aspirational targets"; they are not firm commitments, nor are they supported by a proper analysis of the measures needed to meet them. We reduce greenhouse gas emissions not by announcing a target, however ambitious, but by following through to ratification by parliaments and the implementation of policies which will achieve real action.
Much more important in the long run is that we promote agreement among all countries to join the international response to the problem of climate change. The UK produces some 3 per cent. of global CO₂ emissions, the European Community only 15 per cent. We have consistently advocated the negotiation of an international convention on climate change encompassing all countries, which could be followed by protocols containing specific commitments in areas such as greenhouse gas emissions and forestry. That is the model which proved so successful in reaching agreement to phase out the production and consumption of CFCs through the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol. I am delighted that such good progress is being made in preparing for those negotiations and we expect that the first full session will begin in Washington in February next year. We, along with many others, are committed to achieving agreement on a convention by the time of the United Nations conference on environment and development in Brazil in 1992. It is a tough schedule but it can be met if all countries play their part.
The United Kingdom has played a leading role in the scientific research on climate change, and in the promotion of an international convention; we shall continue to contribute actively to that work in the future while pursuing measures at home which will help to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases. In all our policies we shall continue to be guided by sound science, sound economics and the belief that the world must act together effectively to tackle climate change.
29 I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about a start date for integrated pollution control. Implementation will begin on 1st April 1991, from when all new and substantial modifications to scheduled processes will require an IPC authorisation, as will all large combustion plant.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, what the conditionality clause means, how many countries are involved and which other European nations we are talking about. Global climate change is a global problem. To tackle it effectively requires the co-operation and co-operative action of all countries. International agreement can and must be reached, beginning with a framework convention on climate change by the time of the 1992 United Nations conference on environment and development. The United Kingdom will of course be making a contribution to its conclusions.
There has been much cynical comment on the White Paper. It is important to say that the White Paper of course does not include the minutiae of policies and legislation that will need to flow from it. It is a dynamic and living document from which will flow the measures which will implement and be processed to achieve the objectives. I hope that the noble Lord will continue to say positive things about the White Paper, which was welcomed. It must be followed by real action and it is our view that we must be international in our efforts to achieve some of the objectives of reducing emissions and, eventually, greenhouse gases.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she would develop further the argument on conditionality. Are the Government taking the stance that they would be under no obligation to meet even the 2005 deadline if one, two or three other major countries showed no application of a similar kind? Under those circumstance; will the Government contract out of their obligation?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, there is no question of the Government contracting out of their obligations to play their part in achieving those objectives; but the Government have made it clear from the outset that the objectives will be achieved only if they are tackled globally. We shall continue our efforts globally and shall also play our part as a nation.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits clown a second time, will she answer my second question? Does she recognise that unless carbon dioxide emissions are cut below the 1990 level, global warming will inevitably continue at an exponential rate?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that global warming will continue to be a problem. What we have done as a country, in addition to trying to make sure that there is a global response to this problem, is to do what is achievable and realistic, as well as within the means of this country to achievable. It is better to do something achievable than to engage in aspirational targets which are not achievable.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, perhaps may first welcome the noble Baroness to her responsibilities on this Bill. As we have come to expect of her, she has responded to the debate with lucidity and courtesy. Unfortunately, that did not make her arguments any stronger. There is a sharp contrast between the very limited mechanistic approach which is undertaken in the Bill towards global environmental problems and the rhetoric which is so prevalent in the White Paper.
The Bill is a mechanistic Bill. It sets out in Clause 3 a series of ways in which a Secretary of State may designate processes which will come under the scope of integrated pollution control. In Clause 5 it sets out a series of ways in which the Secretary of State may authorise processes which are acceptable and therefore, presumably by inference, not authorise those which are not acceptable.
It does not at any stage set out the principles on which the Secretary of State will operate in deciding what processes are and what are not acceptable. Therefore, if we take the Bill at face value, industry in this country has no real guidance on what will and will not be allowed.
We know a lot better than that. We know that there has been a considerable amount of work carried out over the years on the examination of what industrial processes are acceptable and what are not. We know that the Government have been thinking about these problems and that local authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution—and when we come to water pollution the National Rivers Authority—have all been concerned with what is and what is not acceptable.
The Bill does not tell us any of this; it simply sets up a series of mechanisms which allow the Secretary of State to take action as he thinks fit. That is a long way from the greening of the Government that was announced by the Prime Minister two years ago.
We are grateful for the support from all Benches in the matter. It is the intention of the Opposition to put some flesh on these bones and to give some meaning to the procedures which are laid down in the Bill. Not that the procedures themselves are wrong—some of them are, but most are reasonable and reasonably practicable. What is not at all clear is the Government's intention in these matters: what resources the Government will put into it, what powers the Government will take and what they will do to ensure that we have a policy in this country of sustainable development.
In introducing the White Paper, the Secretary of State—and I had the pleasure of hearing him at the Open University's open forum programme yesterday evening—described the White Paper as a first effort. It is rather a belated first effort if it comes two years after the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society. She has now moved on and is making a call to all nations to take part in environmental protection. I suggest to the House that it does not come very well for a Prime Minister to call on all nations to take part in environmental protection and then hide behind the 31 achievement of other nations in even setting targets for what we ourselves will do. Surely, if we are making a call to all nations we should take the lead in setting the standards and we should require that other nations should follow us. What the Prime Minister is doing is rather like the Duke of Plaza Toro; she is leading her regiment from behind because she finds it less exciting. That is not satisfactory and does not fit in with the rhetoric of the White Paper.
The Secretary of State may be disarming on this matter. He may make modest statements about what the White Paper is there to achieve. However, unfortunately it is unilateral disarmament. He is disarming himself and his colleagues without ever seeing what can be done to achieve a more effective White Paper. We on all Benches on this side of the House are in favour of an effective environmental policy. We would be in favour of an effective White Paper from the Government. If there had been one, we would have been the first to give it a wholehearted welcome.
With the amendments and in particular Amendment No. 1, we give an opportunity for the Government to make reality of what are otherwise simply beautiful words and beautiful pictures. I suggest in relation to this amendment that if we were to accept a target date of the year 2000 for 1990 levels, that would not only be in accordance with what scientific evidence accepts as being necessary to slow down —no more than that—the rate of global warming, but it would in many ways be easier to achieve than the date of 2005. If we had a 2000 date we would be forced to begin to deal with the issues of emissions from transport. The Minister started to admit that in her reply. We would be forced straight away to start to think of changing the balance of public subsidy as between the private car and public transport. We would be forced to recognise the need for differential energy prices and perhaps higher energy prices. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, recognised that, and it is why he opposed the amendments.
It would be easier for us now to tackle the problem than to sit back for five years—which is rather what I fear will happen—to let matters get worse and then be forced to have a 10-year crash programme from a higher level of emissions to a more difficult target to achieve at the year 2005. It is not only that 2005 is not good enough in global terms; it is not realistic or practical. The Government have an opportunity to recognise that by accepting the amendment. I take it from the Minister's speech that she has no intention of doing so, and I think it therefore proper to take the opinion of the House.

§ 4.27 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. [Teller]	Kennet, L.
Airedale, L.	Kintore, E.
Ardwick, L.	Leatherland, L.
Aylestone, L.	Listowel, E.
Birk, B.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Blackstone, B.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	McNair, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Mulley, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Nathan, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Nicol, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Northfield, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Parry, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Peston, L.
Crook, L.	Phillips, B.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B.	Richard, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Rochester, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Ross of Newport, L.
Ezra, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Falkland, V.	Seear, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Serota, B.
Gallacher, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Galpern, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
[Teller]	Temple of Stowe, E.
Gregson, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Grey, E.	Thurlow, L.
Hampton, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Underhill, L.
Hooson, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	White, B.
Jay, L.	Wigoder, L.
Jeger, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Winstanley, L.
John-Mackie, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L.	Derwent, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Eccles, V.
Allerton, L.	Eden of Winton, L.
Ampthill, L.	Elles, B.
Arran, E.	Elton, L.
Auckland, L.	Faithfull, B.
Balfour, E.	Foley, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Beloff, L.	Gainford, L.
Belstead, L.	Gisborough, L.
Bessborough, E.	Gridley, L.
Blake, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,
Blatch, B.	L.
Blyth, L.	Halsbury, E.
Boardman, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Borthwick, L.	Havers, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Henley, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Hesketh, L.
Brightman, L.	Hives, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Holderness, L.
Butterworth, L.	Hood, V.
Caithness, E.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Ingrow, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Carnock, L.	Killearn, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Colwyn, L.	Kinnaird, L.
Cox, B.	Lauderdale, E.
Craigton, L.	Layton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Liverpool, E.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
De Freyne, L.	Long, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Luke, L.	Renwick, L.
Lyell, L.	Richardson, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Rodney, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.	St. Davids, V.
Malmesbury, E.	Slim, V.
Margadale, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Merrivale, L.	Strange, B.
Mersey, V.	Strathclyde, L.
Milverton, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Mostyn, L.	Strathspey, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Sudeley, L.
Munster, E.	Swansea, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Swinfen, L.
Nelson, E.	Swinton, E.
Norrie, L.	Terrington, L.
Nugent of Guildford, L.	Teviot, L.
Onslow, E.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Orkney, E.	Thorneycroft, L.
Oxfuird, V.	Trumpington, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.	Tryon, L.
Penrhyn, L.	Underhill, L.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Polwarth, L.	Wise, L.
Porritt, L.	Wolfson, L.
Reay, L	Young, B.
Renton, L.

§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

§ 4.34 p.m.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2: Before Clause I, insert the following new clause

§ "Environmental Protection Agency

§ —(1) The Secretary of State may by Order establish as soon as practicable a body corporate for the purpose of advising him on, undertaking research concerning, and promoting the carrying out of, such of the functions vested in him under this Act as he considers appropriate and specifies in a direction to that body, including any of the functions specified in subsection (3) below.

§ (2) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with such person; as appear to be concerned, by order transfer to the body established under this section the responsibility for exercising on his behalf such of the functions specified under subsection (4) below, or such part of any such function, as he may consider appropriate.

§ (3) Any body established under this section shall submit an annual Report to the Secretary of State, who shall lay such a Report before Parliament together with such comments or recommendations as he considers appropriate.

§ (4) The functions vested in the Secretary of State under this Act to which a direction under subsection (1) above, or an Order under subsection (2) above, may refer shall include —

(a) the promotion of preventive measures against pollution, or clean technologies and the development of integrated pollution control generally;
(b) the prescription of processes falling within national control in accordance with the provisions of Part I of this Act;
(c) the issuing of advice as to best practice in the management of waste, including hazardous waste, in accordance with the provisions of Part II below;
(d) the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste;
(e) the monitoring of national standards as to pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance, litter and substances and organisms falling within Parts V and VI below;
(f) the promotion with local authorities of Environmental Impact Analysis in planning matters;
(g) the undertaking of long-term research on environmental and ecological matters;
(h) the promotion of public education as to environmental matters, where appropriate in liaison with local education authorities.
(i) the co-ordination of improvements to the environment in inner city areas, including the reclamation of urban land;
(j) the exercise on behalf of the Secretary of State of functions under sections 133 and 134 in relation to toxic waste;
(k) the monitoring of activities connected with dumping at sea as referred to in section 138 below;
(l) the provision of advice and recommendations as to financial assistance for environmental purposes in accordance with section 143 below; and
(m) the promotion of international co-operation on environmental measures and the dissemination of best practice.

§ (5) The body established under this section shall have such a membership as appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of organisations concerned with environmental, scientific and conservation matters, and of local authorities.

§ (6) Any body to which functions are transferred under subsection (2) above shall publish and submit to Ministers quarterly reports on each function transferred to it and shall supply such information to such Departments of State as the Secretary of State may specify in relation to the carrying out of its functions.").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House, although perhaps disappointed, will not be surprised to hear that Amendment No. 2 is very much on the same lines as the previous amendment, in the sense that we are still trying to get some teeth into the proposals which are set out in the Bill and in the White Paper for integrated pollution control.

§ In Chapter 18 of the White Paper, the Government propose that they will keep in place the White Paper co-ordinating machinery. That is presumably the Cabinet committee which was established to consider the White Paper. I am not in any way attacking the ability of all those who took part in the planning mechanism for the White Paper. Clearly, a major job of co-ordination was required to have a secretariat working for a Cabinet committee on which so many government departments were represented. If you look at the front of the White Paper, you will see that it is presented to Parliament by no fewer than 13 Secretaries of State. But the procedures for producing a White Paper are not exactly the same kind of procedures that are necessary to produce an environmental policy and make an environmental policy stick.

§ My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis this afternoon talked about the nominated Minister in each department and the risk that the nominated Minister would simply be—I think that this was the word used —a watchdog; in other words, someone there to see not that the interests of the environment were protected, but that the interests of the department concerned were protected against anyone who might want to interfere on behalf of the environment. If a junior Minister in the Department of Energy or the Department of Transport or wherever else it may be is nominated as the responsible Minister within that department, it is clear where his loyalties will lie. He 35 will be concerned with pleasing his Secretary of State and meeting the needs of his colleagues in the department rather than acting as a nark, so to speak, on behalf of the environment in the department.

§ We have had an example of that relatively recently. I do not know whether any noble Lords remember the grand proceedings on inner cities. A glossy pamphlet produced by the Department of the Environment nominated no fewer than 18 Ministers in a large number of government departments as being Ministers especially responsible for inner cities. What has happened to them now? We had a glossy pamphlet. We have not had any action resulting from it. I challenge the Minister, or the noble Lord who is to reply, to remember the names of those 18 Ministers who took part in that great initiative on inner cities, let alone what departments they came from.

§ In Chapter 18 of the White Paper we are told that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will be named as a "Next Steps" agency. It is possibly better if we reserve debate on that issue until we come to later amendments on the resources for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. However, though the experience of next steps agencies may or may not be admirable in terms of the independence that they gain from political control, there is certainly no evidence that as a result they are able effectively to argue the case for environmental protection in government as a whole, which should be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.

§ What does Chapter 18 of the White Paper tell us about the future? There is no indication as to the relationship between Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the National Rivers Authority. That is a quite fundamental matter which ought to have been addressed in the White Paper. It is recognised in the White Paper that there is a problem, that there may be overlap and that elements of pollution may fall between the two agencies. The question is not resolved, nor is there even a suggestion of a resolution. There is no suggestion of the solution to the problem of how Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is to deal with waste disposal problems. What is to be the relationship between HMIP and local authorities? None of those matters are dealt with adequately in the White Paper, which simply raises a series of questions without giving adequate answers.

§ There is reference in the White Paper to the regulations set out in the resolution of the European Council of Ministers of May 1990. It is true that the European environment agency which is proposed is to be only an advisory rather than an enforcement agency. Can there be any doubt that the next step for Europe must be some form of European enforcement agency? Every directive and draft directive from Brussels makes it clear that there will have to be an effective body of people—some would say a bureaucracy—able to put into effect the decisions of the European Community. It will have to go beyond co-ordination, consultation and the collection of knowledge and research. It will have to do what the European Parliament wanted it to do, namely, to 36 supervise the extent to which Community rules in the environmental area are observed in each member state. That will require a body of people who are responsible to Her Majesty's Government for all the aspects of environmental protection which are set out in Amendment No. 2.

§ It will be obvious to the House that we have not made up the list of duties of an environmental protection agency from scratch. They follow and extend those which are set out in European Community regulations. They are there for a very good reason: there must be a single body responsible to Ministers—and we shall deal with the question of which Ministers in a later amendment—which can take full responsibility and therefore can make Ministers accountable to Parliament. Unless Ministers have a coherent body of officials behind them adequately covering the range of responsibilities which are placed on them the Government will not be able to answer adequately to Parliament.

§ I believe that in commending the amendment to the House I am following a precedent which deserves, and will need, to be followed on many future occasions. It is essential for the credibility of the Government's position on environmental protection that they should have the means to carry out what they so glibly state as objectives in the White Paper. I beg to move.

§ Lord Addington
My Lords, I should like to support the amendment because there must be a coherent body to provide a means of enforcing any regulations. We should have had an environmental protection agency a long time ago. Whenever regulations are laid down and objectives are set there must be some way of finding out whether those objectives are being met. Unless we have a coherent body such as the one suggested in the amendment we shall never have full and coherent enforcement of such regulations.

§ 4.45 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, I should like to ask two or three questions about what is intended and the meaning of the drafting of the amendment. Those questions arise from the fact that in a Bill of this kind wherever the words "the Secretary of State" appear they apply to any Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has rightly pointed out that large numbers of Ministers, in many departments, are involved in protecting the environment. Nominating junior or senior Ministers for that role may help, and we hope that they will be concerned about the environment even if their main duties lie elsewhere. My point concerns mainly Ministers who have specific functions.
The Secretary of State for the Environment operates only in England. He has no functions or responsibilities in Scotland, and, I am told reliably, hardly any now in Wales. He does not operate in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether there will be four environmental advisory bodies; as the amendment is drafted that could easily be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has heard me say before that the Secretary of State for the Environment deals only with England and takes no decisions on 37 environmental matters in Scotland. He should be, and rightly as, the lead Minister in the United Kingdom. It is he who should be involved in negotiations with other countries and in working out policies for the country as a whole. However, decisions on the matters listed in subsection (4) are matters which are decided in Scotland, for example, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. There the Secretary of State for the Environment has no responsibility for such matters.
The noble Lord mentioned Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. That usually means the inspectorate in England because there is a separate corps in Scotland which works directly for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble Lord mentioned the National Rivers Authority, which operates only in England and Wales and has no functions in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
I agree that that situation makes drafting difficult. It is the convention that "the Secretary of State" covers all Secretaries of State, and during the Committee stage we all agreed that when the term appeared in the singular it would affect three or four Secretaries of State at the same time. The position must therefore be made clear. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not think that I am being a bore on this subject, but it matters a great deal to people north of the Border. While two-thirds of natural resources are in England and Wales at least one-third are in Scotland. Therefore I hope that when dealing with this new clause we can know how the amendment as drafted will lead to any individual Secretary of State taking action. The first two lines call upon "the Secretary of State" to appoint an advisory committee for the purpose of advising "him". Should it be "him" or should it be "them"? That is the point.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I can deal with the issue to avoid clouding the rest of the debate because, since this is Report stage, it is not possible to come back to the point after the Government Front Bench has replied. I yield to the experience of the noble Lord as a former Secretary of State. The difficulty that he sees in the amendment arises, as he will recognise, in every single part of the Bill. "The Secretary of State" always refers to different Secretaries of State for different parts of the country, and often to a plurality of Secretaries of State for different purposes.
Opening the Bill almost at random, I draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 16, which states that the Secretary of State appoints chief inspectors and other inspectors. Clause 16 is careful to state in subsection (3) that: In 'elation to England and Wales the Secretary of State shall constitute one of the inspectors … to be the chief inspector for England and Wales and in relation to Scotland the Secretary of State"— presumably in this case the Secretary of State for Scotland— shall constitute one of the said inspectors to be the chief inspector for Scotland". That is the only reference made anywhere in that clause to England and Wales and Scotland separately.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, if the noble Lord—

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
Perhaps I may just finish the sentence. The rest of the clause and many clauses throughout the Bill go on to prescribe the duties of inspectors to the Secretary of State or the duties of local authorities to the Secretary of State. They simply take into account almost by ignoring them the fact that there will be different Secretaries of State.
Let me make clear what is intended by this amendment. We recognise that more than one Secretary of State is involved. We recognise that there will certainly be different procedures in Scotland from those in England and Wales and probably Northern Ireland. We recognise that there will be interests other than the Department of the Environment—the interests of energy, transport, agriculture, fisheries and food and so on.
We deal with this question—which is a major problem for the Government in their Bill but not a problem for the amendment—in our Amendment No. 3, which proposes a Minister for Environmental Protection. That is the true answer to the problem. However if we propose an organisation, it is a matter for the Secretary of State "collectively" to decide whether it shall be on a country basis or a national basis. That is a matter which does not need to be written on the face of the Bill.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to say that I am most grateful to him for dealing with that point straightaway. It is important to the whole discussion of the amendment. What he said—and said very concisely —at the beginning in his reference to Clause 16 is what I said at length and pointed out at least twice during the Committee stage. We both used almost the same words to point out that several Secretaries of State had to work in different parts of this Bill. However, in every other part of the Bill it is clear how the convention of our drafting will be carried out. It was not clear until the noble Lord told us a moment ago how this would operate in the new clause.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, if I may say so, the difficulty is far greater for the Government than for us in this amendment.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, initially I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was on to an unanswerable point. I became less convinced when I heard the response from my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would support this amendment if he were satisfied on the point that he made. I suspect that the answer is no, but it is an intriguing thought.
My noble friend drew attention to the standing committee of Ministers, which I mentioned in an earlier debate. He suspected that junior Ministers might experience some challenge to their loyalties. That may be even more the case when it is the senior Minister who is appointed to that standing committee, 39 as has happened in a number of instances. I remain to be convinced that this will be a real protector of environmental interests.
The Government assert that they are convinced by the argument that environmental concerns have to be integrated into all policy areas. It has taken them rather a long time to wake up to that fact. I believe, though I am not sure, that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was one of the Environment Ministers at the time when the Fourth Action Programme was adopted by the European Community back in 1987. One of the bull points of the Fourth Action Programme was precisely to endorse that principle. It has taken the Government three years.
As I said, I am not convinced that they have done so. It will take much more than a Standing Committee to integrate environmental concerns into all areas of government policy. One has simply to consider the discordant note struck by the activities of the Department of Transport when it comes to the environmental area and its abysmal record, as well as that of the Department of Energy, in protecting the environment to become rather sceptical about this proposal.
The importance of the protection agency that my noble friend endorses and which I too endorse is that it should be independent of government. At the present time there is an interesting debate taking place inside the European Community. It concerns the proposals that have been advanced by the European Commission and adopted by governments—I believe with unseemly haste, because when governments agree to proposals of that kind within a relatively short time span as a former commissioner for the environment I begin to question the value of the proposals. They have done so. So be it.
However, it is not a revolutionary idea. It is a data-gathering idea. It is the dissemination of information and the provision of information regarding the state of environmental law in each of the member states. It is all very valuable, but I am not totally convinced that it requires a separate part of the Brussels bureaucracy to acquire all that information. Why could it not have been done by Directorate General XI, which deals with the environment? However, there it is. Perhaps it is a first step and the way in which we may seek encouragement from the idea.
The European Parliament looks for something far more radical; namely, an organisation which is capable of enforcing the law as an independent organisation. Unless and until governments are prepared to commit resources in terms of personnel and finance to any such enterprise, it is doomed to failure. That is why I should have been somewhat cautious about accepting the idea of President Delors until and unless one could be reasonably convinced that the member states of the Community were prepared to allocate the necessary resources to make it succeed. Given that political will and commitment I 40 believe that the idea, which is not a novel one and has been deployed in the United States for many years now, is one which should be welcomed.
Our Government are less than enthusiastic about any such idea. They are rather frightened of committing—or perhaps deliberately refuse to commit —the necessary resources to our own enforcement agencies. Consequently, it is pie in the sky to hope that the idea of a European environmental protection agency will get off the ground in the foreseeable future, much as I applaud that concept.
However, that does not mean that in this House and elsewhere we should not urge the idea of an environmental protection agency for this country. In the United States overall it has worked with remarkable success. Why should we not commit ourselves to the very same idea? Is that not a good example? Admittedly, the system of law in the United States which buttresses the EPA is different. We can build on that. We can deploy our experience here. Therefore it is an idea that I thoroughly endorse. It is sad that the Government show no indication whatever to put themselves behind this commitment and make sure that we get something of this sort within the foreseeable future.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, based on his own interesting experience, about an environmental agency is most fascinating. However, with great respect to him, it has nothing to do with the amendment. The amendment deals with an entirely separate situation; namely, ministerial responsibility within the United Kingdom Government for the matters in this Bill. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I suggest that not only is his amendment unnecessary but it could be counter-productive in part for the reasons mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
However, under the Bill as it stands no fewer than four Secretaries of State—all members of the Cabinet —will have a responsibility for the implementation of the Bill. As my noble friend has said, the Secretary of State for the Environment is to be the lead Minister. His direct responsibility is in England. However, we shall have the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland within their own spheres also responsible for the implementation of the Bill. That is a pretty strong Cabinet team.
In addition, as was mentioned by my noble friend, and was stated by the Prime Minister when the White Paper was issued, environmental protection affects nearly all departments. The duties of Ministers in other departments are to be defined and published. That is the position without the amendment. If we accepted the amendment proposing the newly named Minister—

§ 5 p.m.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I believe that he is speaking to the wrong amendment. I have moved Amendment
41 No. 2. We were brought on to other matters by his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. However, I believe that he is speaking to Amendment No. 3.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, I am ashamed to say that the noble Lord is right. I apologise to your Lordships. I hope that I shall not have to repeat the same speech when we reach Amendment No. 3. I hope to do better as the Session gets under way.

§ Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton does not need to apologise. In a sense the two amendments raise much the same issue from different aspects. In the hope of addressing Amendment No. 2, I should like to pick up some of the points which my noble friend has made about the unsuitability within our Cabinet and parliamentary system of establishing an agency such as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has suggested.
One has only to ask such questions as he raised in order to realise how impossible such an agency would be within our system. He talked about resources. As we know, and read daily in our press, resources for departments ultimately are the result of negotiations which Ministers conduct with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Departments have a range of interests. In the field of transport the Government may decide that they wish to undertake more research into cleaner exhausts. That has to be fought for by the Secretary of State for Transport. He has to weigh that against his other responsibilities.
I draw on my experience as Secretary of State for the Environment. With regard to international policy, the Government may wish to accede to the 30 per cent. club (as it used to be called) on reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide and NOx by 30 per cent. from a datum of 1980. That affects not only the Department of Energy but the Foreign Office, the Department of the Environment and others.
Those decisions are taken either by a whole Cabinet or the Cabinet Committee with Ministers fighting their corner—because inevitably there may be conflict. The Cabinet reaches a resolution at the end of the day. Is it suggested that the proposed agency will override the departmental interests of Ministers? Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shakes his head. How could it?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I am not only shaking my head; I am reflecting the terms of the amendment. It proposes: Promoting the carrying out of, such of the functions vested in him … as he considers appropriate and specifies in a direction to that body". Clearly the matter goes back to the Secretary of State.

§ Lord Jenkin of Roding
Of course it goes back, but there will be many Secretaries of State. I pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I do not understand how such an agency will reconcile the differences which inevitably arise between departmental objectives. The normal processes of discussion and argument result in a decision of the Government as a whole. I suspect that the only result of imposing such an agency on the system will be to add yet one more voice, one more body that has 42 to have copies of everything, one more body that will submit papers and one more body that will seek to tell departments what they should do.
The proposal in the White Paper—that there should be lead departments but that every department should have a Minister who is keeping an eye on it —seems a much more practicable solution.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked a valid question. I shall ask one of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Will the proposal resolve some of the problems with which we are confronted today? In the course of the debates on the Water Act there was a good deal of discussion on the different roles of the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. The argument has continued. During the Recess I chaired a conference on the implementation of the Water Act. We heard a very interesting speech from the chief executive of the National Rivers Authority. He said that the NRA has now achieved a memorandum of understanding with HMIP. That is very good news. It is important that that should be done.
In the course of his reply will my noble friend tell us when such a memorandum will be published? From the point of view of people in the industry it is important that it should be published fairly soon. It was a public conference. It is public knowledge that such a memorandum of understanding has been reached and signed. When will it be published?
How will the proposed agency avoid such a problem? It will add one more voice and one more source of advice and information to that which already exists. As one who has sat through the process of discussing these matters with colleagues in government on the environment scene, I find it difficult to see how such a body would fit in with our system of government and of parliamentary responsibility.
In his reply perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can go a little further to convince the House. On the basis of the arguments that I have heard so far, I would not be tempted to support his amendment.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in opposition to the amendment. From my experience there would be some logic in what he says if government departments—I do not refer only to present government departments—were the front runners or innovators of some of the more progressive issues dealing with the environment. But, sadly, they are not. From recent experience Government appear to be the worst in terms of ignoring legislation that has been passed in another place and in this House when dealing with people "out in the sticks".
I cite two instances. Governments—and I include the present Government—do not have the best record for employing people under the sick and disabled legislation. They do not have the best record for implementing the offices and shops legislation. I doubt whether the staff working in this Palace of 43 Westminster enjoy the conditions that the offices and shops legislation is supposed to accord them in their working lives.
There is a case for having some kind of overlord to deal equally with every department of state. I do not believe that any four Secretaries of State will see the priorities regarding the environment as being the same. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke of the battle for resources which would take place annually. There may well be a Secretary of State who will have a strong leaning towards cleaning up the environment as regards his department. However, there may be another Secretary of State who will see that as being low on his list of priorities. Under such circumstances who will decide what will happen?
I listened with great care to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who was a Secretary of State and some of them deserve to be taken seriously. However, on the basis of my experience I do not trust Secretaries of State in this or any future government to look after their departments in terms of the environment as the general public might wish. My noble friend Lord McIntosh made a case which is worthy of serious consideration.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what has been said and I am anxious about the way in which the many admirable objectives of the legislation will be carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has enormous experience in government. He conjured up in my mind the picture of virtually every issue having to go before an inter-departmental committee for endless debate before any action was taken.
The point raised initially by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and dealt with in the subsequent debate, suggests that a way around the problem must be found. When the Health and Safety Executive was considered I was at the National Coal Board. We fought hard against the executive because we believed that safety in mines was totally different from safety on the shop floor and elsewhere and that therefore we should continue to control it. In the event the executive has worked out fairly well. All health and safety legislation has been brought together in the hands of one executive. It must keep in touch with many government departments all of which have interests in health and safety. In the event the executive was the right way forward. I fail to see why as regards pollution we should not learn by our experience of health and safety.

§ 5.15 p.m.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, there can be no argument that we must have in place the right machinery to secure the protection of the environment. The Bill is the proof of the Government's determination to secure that, as, indeed, was the creation last year of the powerful National Rivers Authority and of the pollution inspectorate two years previously.
The Opposition's specific case has been that there should be a single independent body with a broad 44 range of executive and advisory functions—enforcement, policy development, research, exhortation and so forth—covering the whole field of environmental protection and embracing both the HMIP and the NRA. The Government's response to that specific case, put forward in a number of quarters, was completely fair and reasonable. We made it clear that we were not closed to arguments in favour of a broadly-based independent environmental executive but that we had reservations; for example, about the risk of unwarranted bureaucracy and the loss of political accountability, given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin as a reason against an EPA. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear that he was examining the institutional question with a completely open mind in the context of the environmental White Paper.
Chapter 18 of the White Paper sets out the conclusion that the Government reached after a careful examination of our existing institutions for environmental protection. The conclusion was that the time was not right to think of a further major constructional change to the system such as the amalgamation of the existing regulatory bodies. The NRA has been in existence for less than a year. HMIP, which was set up in 1987, receives considerable new functions in the Bill. Local authorities also gain important new responsibilities. The White Paper states: The Government has concluded that the case … is insufficient to outweigh the disadvantages of further administrative upheaval at just the time when the new organisations are getting into their stride". However, the White Paper goes on to put forward two ways of strengthening HMIP's position. First, it proposes to make HMIP a candidate to become a Next Steps agency, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, under the programme launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in 1988. In other words, it is proposed to make it a separate executive agency within government. That is in line with the policy that the executive functions of government should be conducted through such agencies to the greatest extent practicable. The move should give HMIP not only greater financial and administrative freedom of action but also an enhanced status, a clearly separate identity and therefore greater authority.
The second initiative announced in the White Paper was the appointment of an independent advisory committee to advise HMIP on all its responsibilities. That too will have an important contribution to offer. It will make available new independent sources of advice from a wide range of informed opinion which will reinforce the role and the authority of HMIP. I believe that both those important developments should be welcome to your Lordships.
However, matters do not have to end there for all time. The White Paper also points to the possibility of further measures in due course. One such measure is the creation of a new umbrella body overseeing the work of the NRA and HMIP. Another is the expansion of HMIP's role as regards the regulation of waste disposal. I am confident that your Lordships 45 will endorse our main finding that for the short term the greatest advantage must lie in giving the existing organisations full opportunity to settle down and establish their credibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the issue of the European Environmental Agency. The United Kingdom Government have strongly supported the EC's proposal for the environmental agency; indeed, we tendered a bid for it to be located in Cambridge. The noble Lord spoke favourably about the proposals of the European Parliament to convert the proposed agency into some kind of supranational police force. While we have pressed the EC Commission strongly to increase its efforts to secure the compliance of member states with Community legislation on the environment, we can see no justification for a special pan-European enforcement agency of that kind.
The noble Lord also turned to the United States in order to give an example of its Environmental Protection Agency. We believe that it is not well conceived as an example of what we should do. The Environmental Protection Agency is a federal institution and exists in an entirely different institutional set-up. Its purview includes all the environmental media but it is not primarily an enforcement agency. The executive task of pollution control is one for individual states which are free to make their own laws on the subject provided that they do not violate federal laws. The EPA is thus close in concept to a federal ministry for the environment. That has now been acknowledged by the President's recent decision to bring the EPA within government, to make its administrator a secretary of state and give him a seat in the Cabinet. So the system will move not n the direction recommended by the noble Lord in his amendment but away from it.
In our view, this amendment is not the way to achieve the structures needed to ensure the protection of our environment. I have given the background against which the amendment must be considered, but at first sight noble Lords seem to be asking for something slightly different from what was asked for on previous occasions when this amendment was tabled both here and in the other place.
Amendment No. 2 proposes an advisory body. It would advise the Secretary of State on his functions under the Act, undertake research on them and promote their carrying out. However, I must confess that it is not entirely clear what that means. At the Secretary of State's request, it would assume responsibility also for exercising his functions. That does not strike me as being entirely in keeping with the notion of an advisory body.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy raised a very good point which was directed at the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as author of the amendment. I believe that he received a satisfactory reply. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding asked what was the status of the memorandum of understanding between the NRA and HMIP. I believe that that is now reaching a 46 conclusion. I cannot be specific about when that will he published but I assure the noble Lord that it will be published.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, derided the decision to nominate a Minister in each department to take responsibility for overseeing the environmental dimension in the department's policies. He said that that would be a responsibility shuffled off on to junior Ministers in the Departments of Energy and Transport who would not be able to stand up to their Secretaries of State. Last week the Government published the list of Ministers. The noble Lord may be pleased to learn that the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy have nominated themselves as the environmental Ministers. That indicates the seriousness and effectiveness with which that initiative will be implemented.
As I said, we do not believe that this amendment is the way to achieve the structures needed to ensure protection of our environment in the future. We share the goals of the noble Lord opposite to achieve the right institutional framework. I believe that the further action proposed in the White Paper is evidence of that. However, our present plans are not necessarily fixed for ever. The White Paper makes clear that, as we gain experience of the new structures, the case for further rationalisation may be strengthened. However, surely the right way forward lies with our existing bodies and the new strong and clearly defined roles which they have so recently been given.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I start by dealing with the interventions by two former distinguished Secretaries of State. I have never been a Secretary of State and have only run a small business, so I certainly do not have their experience of government machinery. However, I suggest that they have been adequately answered by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. There is a perfectly good and effective precedent for an independent agency of the sort which we are proposing here in the example of the Health and Safety Executive. That is not responsible only to the Secretary of State for Employment, although the Department of Employment is the lead department. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it works effectively and references can be made to it by any of the Secretaries of State originally responsible for setting it up. It reports to them as regards their own departmental responsibilities. Above all, it is an effective body which ensures that a policy function exists even when it cuts across departmental boundaries.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, on Report one cannot speak again, and therefore I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The point about that executive is that the Department of Employment covers Great Britain. The Secretary of State is responsible for Scotland and Wales. That was one of the reasons for the difficulty about bringing in the pollution side of the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. As regards pollution, the Secretaries of State work in their own different countries and have complete responsibility, given to them by Parliament, for all decisions in those 47 individual countries. That creates the complication which I raised. I thank the noble Lord for the answer which he gave, because it means that there could be three or four advisory councils. That is really what I wanted to know.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, there could be, but it is not necessary to decide that now. The Bill does not decide that now. I cited Clause 16, which states that there will be a body of inspectors and that there will be a chief inspector for England and Wales and a chief inspector for Scotland. It does not state that that means that there will be a separate inspectorate for Scotland and for England and Wales. The question of what happens as between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland need not be decided on the face of the Bill. The Government have not done so and we do not do so.
I suggest to your Lordships that these are relatively minor matters. The more important issue with which the House is faced concerns how we are to ensure that action is taken as regards the environment when the Department of the Environment is not the only department concerned. That is the fundamental issue. That has not been answered by the Government's description of what has happened until now and what will happen according to the White Paper.
Let us consider what has happened. There was a great speech in 1988 by the Prime Minister to the Royal Society and there was a great speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Conservative Party Conference in 1989. Both speeches indicated that there would be a comprehensive government review and policy for improving the environment. What happened? A Cabinet Committee was set up—was it Misc. 17? We are not supposed to know that it exists, let alone what are the names and numbers. In that Cabinet Committee the Secretary of State for the Environment was defeated time after time. Whenever there was a challenge, the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy saw to it that their departmental interests as they saw them prevailed over the interests of the Department of the Environment.
When we are told by the noble Lord that the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Transport have nominated themselves as the Ministers responsible for the Environment, that only increases my cynicism. Of course they have done that. They have done that because they do not wish to be outgunned in this Standing Committee by the Secretary of State for the Environment. They will make sure that they are not outgunned because they will pull rank on him on every occasion.
In other words, the obstructiveness which was felt in this Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister will continue in the proposals set out in the White Paper. We are now told that there will be a Standing Committee of Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers may be superhuman, but my experience is that if a Standing Committee continues for long enough its members begin to fidget and to shift their weight from one foot to another. They end up leaning 48 against the mantelpiece. In the end the initiatives collapse, just as the inner cities initiatives collapsed under the weight of people who were supposed to be responsible for them but were not in fact responsible.
No, my Lords. Those are not answers. The noble Lord in his reply to me, in which he accurately repeated the description that I gave of Chapter 18 of the White Paper, did not even suggest that there were any proper answers. All the important decisions have not been taken in the White Paper. This amendment secures that there would be an effective decision and I suggest that the House should support the amendment.

§ 5.29 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L. [Teller.]	John Mackie, L.
Airedale, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Ardwick, L.	Kilmarnock, L.
Aylestone, L.	Kintore, E.
Birk, B.	Listowel, E.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Longford, E.
Broadbridge, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	McNair, L,
Bruce of Donington, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mulley, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Nathan, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Nicol, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Northfield, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Parry, L.
David, B.	Peston, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Phillips, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Richard, L.
Ewart Biggs, B.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Ezra, L.	Rochester, L.
Falkland, V.	Ross of Newport, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Seear, B.
Gallacher, L.	Serota, B.
Galpern, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
[Teller.]	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Gregson, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Grey, E.	Tordoff, L.
Hampton, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Underhill, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Varley, L.
Hooson, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	White, B.
Jay, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jeger, B.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Winstanley, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Blyth, L.
Allerton, L.	Boardman, L.
Ampthill, L.	Borthwick, L.
Arran, E.	Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Auckland, L.	Brabazon of Tara, L.
Balfour, E.	Brookes, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Brougham and Vaux, L.
Bellwin, L.	Buckinghamshire, E.
Bessborough, E.	Butterworth, L.
Blake, L.	Caithness, E.
Blatch, B.	Campbell of Alloway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Malmesbury, E.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Margadale, L.
Carringion, L.	Merrivale, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Mersey, V.
Clitheroe, L.	Milverton, L.
Colwyn L.	Mostyn, L.
Cox, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Craigavon, V.	Munster, E.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Nelson, E.
Denham, L.	Newall, L.
Derwent, L.	Newcastle, Bp.
Eden of Winton, L.	Norfolk, D.
Elles, B	Norrie, L.
Elton, L.	Onslow, E.
Faithfull, B.	Orkney, E.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Foley, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Gainford, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Gisborough, L.	Polwarth, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Reay, L.
Gridley L.	Renton, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,	Renwick, L.
L.	Rodney, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	St. Davids, V.
Henley, L.	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Hesketh, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hives, L.	Stockton, E.
Holderness, L.	Strange, B.
Hood, V.	Strathclyde, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Ingrow L.	Sudeley, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Swinton, E.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Terrington, L.
Killearn, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Thorneycroft, L.
Layton. L.	Trefgarne, L.
Liverpool, E.	Trumpington, B.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Tryon, L.
Long, V. [Teller.]	Ullswater, V.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Luke, L.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Lyell, L.	Wise, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.

§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

§ 5.37 p.m.

§ Clause 1 [Preliminary]:

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 37, at end insert ("(l0A) Functions exercisable under this Part by the Secretary of State may be undertaken in any case by the Minister for Environmental Protection."). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rather suspect that with or without the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we have covered a good deal of the ground with which this amendment deals. The amendments are deliberately not grouped together. We recognise that for the Government to pass effective environmental protection measures—if that is their wish—it is not a simple matter.

§ The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made a characteristic contribution. He does not believe that it is possible to have any policy which reflects the view of Government as a whole other than the views of conflicting departments. He does not believe that there is any machinery which makes it possible to achieve that. I take the contrary view. Unless we can get away from government by department and the division of 50 departmental responsibilities, we are abdicating a considerable part of our responsibilities to the nation. I certainly take that view regarding environmental protection

§ A number of amendments to be debated later today and on future days of this Report Stage reflect our conviction that the issue of environmental protection is greater than the department sponsoring the Bill. That is not to the discredit of the department. It already covers a wide range of responsibilities. It is a fact that environmental protection will not be achieved on a national and global scale without the active co-operation or, if necessary, the enforced co-operation of other departments; notably energy, transport, and, obviously, agriculture. There must also be the active co-operation of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They will be responsible for the implementation of decisions in their areas as well as for taking part in ensuring that those decisions are the right ones.

§ We have perhaps had enough fun with the so-called Standing Committee of Cabinet Ministers. It is now obvious to your Lordships that that committee has no intention whatever of doing anything other than protecting the bases of the departments concerned. They will not co-operate; they will not ensure that there is an integrated policy. They will ensure that nobody interferes with their own spheres of responsibility. The fact that the present Secretaries of State for Energy and Transport nominated themselves on to that standing committee makes that point 110 per cent. clear.

§ The view put forward in this amendment is that it is no good relying on a standing committee, whether chaired by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment or anybody else. We must have a Minister for environmental protection. That Minister must have the responsibility of standing in the House of Commons and taking responsibility for the whole range of environmental policies of the Government. That is the purpose of this amendment. It is complementary to the amendment relating to the Environmental Protection Agency and the advisory body. Without further ado, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to resume and conclude the speech which I prematurely and mistakenly made on the previous amendment. I shall not repeat what I said but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has realised that the days when Parliament legislated to define the responsibilities of Ministers and their designation, the responsibilities of junior Ministers, and so on, passed about 30 or 40 years ago. Now, the Prime Minister decides, and sometimes changes, the designations. I believe that certain appointments have to be confirmed by Order in Council but in Parliament we no longer purport to control these matters.
In regard to this amendment, therefore, it would be unusual for us to legislate on the functions exercised by the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out on the previous amendment that the words "Secretary of State" mean 51 any Secretary of State. In this Bill they refer to any of the four Secretaries of State whom I mentioned plus others who were referred to on the previous amendment such as the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Transport, and so on.
We have a very strong team in the Cabinet with responsibility for taking action on these matters. It is best left to the departments which already exercise these various functions instead of doing what the noble Lord said he would prefer; namely, getting away from government by department. That means setting up a huge quango, as we discussed on the previous amendment, which would be largely independent of parliamentary control and a terrible duplication.
The amendment is unnecessary because if it were to be decided that there should be a Minister for environmental protection as well as a Secretary of State there is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister from so arranging it. In any event, one wonders whether such a Minister would be outside the Cabinet, bearing in mind that there are already a great number of Ministers in the Cabinet performing the very functions which the Minister responsible for the protection of the environment would have. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to say, with respect, that the amendment is misconceived.

§ 5.45 p.m.

§ Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a few words in reply to the accusations levelled at me, in his charming way, by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Of course it is not every decision which would need to reach a Cabinet committee. There are a great many actions and proposals by government and individual departments that can be agreed and implemented without the matter ever reaching a formal committee.
The problems arise—the noble Lord referred to some of them—when there are clear-cut departmental interests to be resolved. They are resolved through the Cabinet committee machinery. In that direction the noble Lord's proposals break down. He has the marvellous idea of the Minister for environmental protection standing up in the House of Commons—presumably, like the Prime Minister, only able to be in the House of Commons—and propounding the Government's policy on the environment. He can do that if he has the support of his colleagues and has carried his policy in Cabinet. He would he in no different position from any other member of the Cabinet. But he could not announce a policy which did not have the support of the whole Government. Therefore, I believe that, again, the idea is misconceived.
A Minister can be given a specific responsibility to promote a policy. I give as an example the extremely successful period in office of my right honourable friend Kenneth Baker who was asked by the Prime Minister to give a shove to information technology. He was given the title, as a junior Minister, of Minister for Information Technology. At a time when there was perhaps insufficient understanding in many 52 quarters of this country of the importance of a burgeoning industry embraced by the phrase "information technology", he did a most remarkable job in promoting it; not just within the Government but throughout the country as a whole. He gave such technology a tremendous shove and highlighted its importance. But he was not doing anything which in any sense cut across other departmental policies or initiatives. He was taking a subject and giving it a higher profile. He was my junior Minister at the time and, if I may say so, fulfilled his task with immense success.
That is totally different from my understanding of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes. He wants some kind of super-Minister able to over-ride the wishes of his colleagues and arrive at policy proposals which he can then announce despite the opposition of fellow members of the Cabinet. That could not conceivably happen.
Of course we must keep the whole implementation of environmental policy under review. I was much encouraged by what my noble friend said from the Front Bench in answer to the previous amendment. What he said is right. We cannot leap into large new bureaucracies, creating new super-Ministers in the hope that this answers the problem. It is not the answer. There are very real issues and problems to be resolved. In our constitution they will be resolved by the machinery of Cabinet and Cabinet committees, with Ministers ultimately exercising collective responsibility and answerable to Parliament. That is the way it is done. Progress may sometimes be slow. It may not always produce the answer that everybody wants. But it is fairly effective government, and I do not see anything in what is proposed that improves upon it.

§ Lord Parry
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will accept that it was his noble friend, not my noble friend, who inadvertently used the word "supernatural" when describing Ministers.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Jenkin for the points they made, particularly about the undesirability of using primary legislation for the kind of appointment outlined in the amendment.
I fear that I will not be able to satisfy the noble Lord opposite by offering him any comfort that his ideas suggest a monopoly of concern for the environment by the party opposite. Whether his party would like to have a member of the Government under the illustrious title of Minister for environmental protection is a matter for that party. I remind the noble Lord that we already have a Secretary of State for the Environment sitting in the Cabinet, and an outstanding job he is making of it. We also have a Minister for Environment—this Government are proud to have had the first ever—and he, too, is doing an outstanding job.
I wonder whether anyone here really sets as much store by these proposals and these titles as noble Lords opposite. If they are concerned to ensure the effective delivery of environmental policies in Whitehall I recommend them to look at section 18 of our White 53 Paper That sets out the Government's proposals for an environment Minister in each department as well as a Standing Committee of Cabinet Ministers to consider environmental policies and follow up the policies described in the paper itself. That, I suggest, is the real way of securing proper delivery of environmental policies. We are all green now. Concentrating responsibility for environmental policy yet further in the hands of one person, isolated in his or her own department, is quite the wrong direction in which to be going.
What must be encouraged is that consideration for the environment should become a second nature activity for all who are working in government departments at all levels—national and local—and, indeed, for industry and commerce, and taken even further by all of us as individuals. So I fear that I see no effective purpose behind the noble Lord's amendment.
But turning to the letter of that amendment, it has in practical terms no significance. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the use throughout the Bill of the phrase "Secretary of State" does not refer in legal terms to the individual occupying the post of Secretary of State for the Environment but rather to the legal entity of government. In practice, functions will indeed be exercised by the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales. But their Ministers of State will act for them on a day-to-day basis in many matters under the Bill as they do for a whole host of matters outside it.
If the suggestion is that we somehow need to provide for a Minister who is mandated to pursue some sort of exclusively green goal, and pay no regard to the interests of his Cabinet colleagues in other departments, I fear that would be a course that I could not recommend to this House. That is not the way that any government do their business, nor is it the way to secure a cleaner environment.
The Government are in business to see that something happens as a result of this Bill by the measures contained in it. This amendment, and the previous one, concern themselves with an overlaying bureaucracy. I cannot commend them to the House.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I do not need to detain the House very long on this matter. Obviously, we are aware of the meaning of the words of the amendment. We are also aware that any Secretary of State may delegate any of his functions. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we are very well aware that Parliament does not lay down which particular Minister in a government shall do what. That is why we use the word "may" in the amendment. In this amendment we are not attempting to overthrow the constitution or anything as grand as that. We are simply drawing attention to the undoubted fact that the Department of the Environment does not of itself encompass all environmental responsibilities.
We are not suggesting that the whole system of Cabinet committees to reconcile differences between departments should be overthrown or that the system 54 should be superseded by any super-Minister for environmental protection. We are saying that such a system works in other places. It works in the United States and in Holland where they have much more effective environmental policies than we have. The provision draws attention in public to both a need for public recognition and also, by the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole, to the importance of environmental protection. It draws attention to the inadequacies of the Government's proposals for the co-ordination of environmental policies in this Bill, but particularly also in the White Paper which was supposed to make some progress on this issue. This is not a matter on which I seek the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 4: After Clause I, insert the following new clause:

§ ("Assistance by Secretary of State to local authorities in protecting the environment

§ —(I) The Secretary of State shall, for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the local environment, give such assistance as may be conducive to the effective carrying-out by local authorities of their functions under this Act.

§ (2)For the purposes of the general duty referred to in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, in respect of any financial year in which the functions specified in subsection (3) below, or otherwise under this Act, are exercisable by local authorities, satisfy himself that the resources available to those authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of their functions.

§ (3)For the purposes of this section, the functions of local authorities under this Act shall include—

(a)the promotion, protection and enhancement of the natural and physical environment in their areas, in liaison with national and regional bodies with environmental regulatory functions;
(b)the monitoring and auditing of the quality of the local environment in accordance with standards established under this Act;
(c)the provision of public information on environmental matters relevant to the local area;
(d)the co-ordination of other local authority functions for the purpose of enhancing the local environment;
(e)the local enforcement of requirements in relation to air pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance and such other standards as may be determined under this Act;
(f)the maintenance of such public registers or authorisations, applications and infringements of standards as may he required under this Act; and
(g)the undertaking of environmental impact assessments into local processes capable of causing pollution or likely to arise from development applications.").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble colleague Lord McIntosh. The objective of this amendment is to try to obtain from the Government an undertaking that sufficient resources will be made available to local authorities to do the job on behalf of the people under their control or who live in their areas. Local authorities are in the front line of the battle for a clean environment. They already have many legal duties as this Bill is enacted. They also have many powers not only to act against degradation of the environment, but to positively enhance the quality of life for the communities they serve.

§ Local authorities are likely to be the first point of contact for anybody with a particular environmental problem. Often the solution will lie with the local authority using its powers over such areas as air pollution, noise and nuisance and waste management. We hope that it is not an indication of the real way in which the Government consider local authorities in that the section dealing with Action for Local Authorities appears on the last page of the last chapter of the White Paper. The only section following that which deals with local government is contained in an annexe. Local government is relegated to page 270 of a 298-page document. That does not augur well for the future of local government.

§ Nevertheless, elsewhere in the White Paper the Government do pay due regard to the role that local authorities can have in environmental policy. In two short paragraphs they pay clue respect to the fact that the best local authorities have an enviable environmental record. They are pioneering ways to co-ordinate their environmental strategies and activities on a corporate basis. However, the White Paper does not create a framework within which local authorities can work with central government. Within an interlocking national, regional and local environmental protection agency set-up, local authorities can act on an agency basis for the national environment protection executive on many issues, building on their responsibilities over pollution and waste disposal.

§ While not losing any powers, local authorities can draw on specialist advice and facilities of the national bodies, while they in turn will need the results of local authority monitoring to build up a picture of environmental problems. Local authorities have many powers and duties which are not only to protect the environment but actually to enhance it. Their role in the planning system gives them the power to preserve and enhance the natural environment and to ensure that new development fits in with local surroundings and that derelict land is brought hack into use as quickly as possible.

§ Their role in dealing with waste collection and management gives them the power to develop an integrated birth-to-earth approach to waste management. Their role in transport planning gives them the power to introduce less environmentally damaging traffic calming schemes. It gives them power to promote traffic management schemes, integrated public transport services and new environmentally sensitive transport infrastructures such as light rail services and cycleways.

§ Local authorities can also play an important part in energy conservation policies. Already many authorities have saved their ratepayers substantial sums of money through their energy conservation measures in the buildings that they own and manage. Waste can be used as a fuel in combined heat and power schemes and in insulation and energy conservation. Local authorities should carry out regular audits of their own activities and the state of the environment in their local communities. The decentralisation of decision-making helps to make local authorities sensitive to the 56 needs of the environment. A commitment to devolve Whitehall and Westminster decision-making through devolution and reorganisation of local government to produce a single tier of single-purpose districts, with general powers of competence, is an important contribution to that process.

§ Although there is still a need to take many decisions about minimum standards at EC and UK levels, local decision makers are much more likely to take into account the environmental impact of their deliberations than those remote from the communities directly affected. Therefore, there is a real need to put greater emphasis on the role of local government in environmental policy.

§ When I began to move this amendment I referred to the fact that the Government have paid some respect to the history of good work that has been done in the past by some local authorities. It is true that over a great number of years local authorities have been the innovators of some of the best policies concerning the environment. As regards my own City of Manchester I mention the smokeless zones, smoke-control areas and food hygiene controls. These provisions are mirrored in most of the other large areas. They were brought about by private Bills and not through government legislation. Therefore, local authorities are aware of what is going on in their particular areas.

§ It is wrong for us to assume that all areas are alike. They are not. Some of the areas of greatest need can claim to have been rather shabbily treated over the past few years in the disbursement of government funding designed to help them. For example, most of the large cities have twice the national average of deaths from heart failure among males above the age of 50 and twice the national average of deaths among children before the age of one year. That is an example of what is happening in areas such as East Manchester where I originally came from. The problem arises from the environment into which the children are born. While there is deprivation in terms of the quality of housing, and so on, that is the area of real need. The inner cities are being well looked after through the Government's attempts at development. What I am talking about are the areas which buttress the inner living areas—the working class areas—of these major cities.

§ The Government would do well to consider giving local authorities a more enhanced role. I speak to councillors from Labour areas and Conservative areas. They claim that they are being ignored regarding decisions which affect their communities. This is an excellent chance for the Government to make available the necessary resources to allow councils to get on with the job. They are the best agency to deal with these issues. They know their own priorities. Local government has been under attack for a number of years. I hope that in this instance the Government will look kindly on the new clause and that the Minister will be able to make a sympathetic gesture. I beg to move.

§ 6 p.m.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Dean in his very vigorous and justifiable defence of local government and of the role that it can play in giving effect to a truly effective national environmental policy. I at once declare my interest. I served as a member of a local authority in inner London for more than 12 years. In that period I learnt to respect local government. The role local government was permitted to play had been underscored by successive governments, including the one in which I served.
Local government today is under constant attack. Hardly a moment passes without one Minister or another resorting to suggestions that local government is utterly wasteful. Ministers invent all kinds of lunatic new taxes in order to inhibit local government. That perhaps reflects why—this was the point made by my noble friend—local government has been sunk virtually without trace in the White Paper. Perhaps it has not suffered quite as damaging an effect as Professor Pearce, but nonetheless it is quite clear that the Government do not really believe that local government should play a significant role in their plans for the environment or, for that matter, in anything else. What is strange is that in the debates at Second Reading and in Committee lip service was paid by Ministers to the importance of local government in helping to fulfil the objectives of the Government's environmental policy. If that is what they feel, why is local government being starved—and starved it is—of the precious resources it requires in order to fulfil those objectives?
The Government say constantly that they are concerned about wasteful policies on the part of local government. Local government councillors are subjected to stringent provisions and to the powers of the district auditor. If the Government were subject to the powers that the district auditor is able to use in relation to local government, Ministers would have been surcharged over and over again. Some of them might not have been permitted to serve in government ever again. It is not good enough to pay lip service to the role that local government can play.
I know from my time in Europe and before that as a Minister that local government, regardless of party, has been able to initiate and then carry out the most worthwhile programmes of urban renewal and environmental protection and enhancement. Over the years it has been unafraid of doing that. It has garnered its own resources and those of the private sector and of many non-governmental organisations. My noble friend referred to Manchester, but Birmingham too has undertaken the most remarkable efforts to improve a deteriorating environment. Local councillors and officials in local government who serve those councillors are much closer to the requirements of their communities than central government can ever be. Yet the Government have made it plain that the role of central government is almost paramount.
I do not need to rehearse the activities that are undertaken by local government—that was amply done by my noble friend—but I think it is an 58 enormous mistake for central government to become and to seek to become infinitely more powerful in dealing with local communities. I believe that local government should be regarded as an ally and not as an enemy in the battle to ensure that environmental protection in this country is properly advanced. I believe that virtually everything the Government have done in this field has been inimical to the objective for which they themselves claim to be working.

§ Lord Ross of Newport
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment. It is extraordinary that the only real mention in the White Paper of the role of local authorities—they are mentioned many times in the text—comes on page 270 and amounts to only half a page at that. I have enjoyed reading the White Paper. It is a useful document to remind us of what has been done and can be done. I suggest that the price of £24.50 puts it out of the reach of many people even in these days when new books cost a great deal of money, as I know because I am always buying books.
I suspect that the Minister may have some sympathy with the amendment as I know that she has spent a good deal of time in local government. I feel strongly that there is a role for local authorities, a point expressed so well by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The buildings referred to in the White Paper are all either PSA or government sponsored. For instance, the county architect of the Isle of Wight, Mr. Rainey, won national awards for public buildings. The library in Newport, which I commend to everyone, and the old people's complex at Ryde won national awards. In 1981 or 1982, when I was on the county council, we appointed an energy saving officer. That may well have been done at the suggestion of the then Secretary of State. The officer reported to the council quarterly on savings in energy consumption both in county hall buildings and in schools. Local authorities can play an enormous role. They must be encouraged.
One of the more imaginative ideas from the Countryside Commission recently was for a forest in the Midlands. From newspaper reports over the past few days I see that it is likely to cost up to £100 million. No doubt local authorities such as Birmingham, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, and so on, will be asked to contribute. I hope that sufficient funds will be awarded by government to help the local authorities. That will be necessary if these schemes are to see fruition. It is desperately important to get local authorities involved. The ACC, the ADC and the AMA submitted evidence to him. Many bodies submitted evidence to him. I wonder whether that will be published. A great deal of worthwhile and well thought through documentation must be lying in the Department of the Environment at this time.
I hope that the Government will take a very different attitude to local authorities on the whole question of the environment. Party politics are not involved. The whole nation wants to see these schemes brought to fruition. We need protection from pollution and from the other problems that beset us. 59 Therefore, it is important that local authorities are brought in and used sensibly by the Government to help in resolving environmental problems.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, as with the amendment which we discussed as regards the proposals for a national environmental advisory body, this amendment is being discussed in a slightly different form from on previous occasions both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
There can be no doubting the very important role that the local authorities have in protecting and enhancing the environment at the local level. This is something which the Government have laid great stress on, not least during the progress of this Bill. Indeed, the Bill itself is evidence of that, since it very greatly strengthens and widens the local authorities' remit in environmental protection.
Part I gives local authorities considerable new powers to deal with air pollution from a whole range of industrial processes. Part II greatly extends both their own duties with regard to waste management, and their powers to regulate effectively the whole of the waste cycle. Part III streamlines their powers for dealing with statutory nuisance and noise. Part IV not only gives them clear new duties to achieve the best standards in litter clearance but also the power to demand the same standards of other landowners and to deal with those who drop litter.
The White Paper, too, pays tribute to the huge diversity of local authorities' environmental responsibilities, as well as to the great vigour with which many of them are taking up the new challenges that face them. I quote again from the White Paper: Local authorities have a key part to play in environmental policy. Not only do they have a range of specific powers and functions which have a direct impact on their local environment, but also, as with Government Departments, almost everything which local authorities do has some impact on the environment"— I now come to the sentence which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, had the grace to quote— The best local authorities have an enviable environmental record, and are pioneering ways of co-ordinating their environmental strategies and activities on a corporate basis". As well as welcoming the current initiatives from the local authority associations in preparing a guide to environmental best practice by authorities, the White Paper points to the need for central and local government to work closely together on the development and implementation of environmental policies. It therefore proposes to build on existing contacts by creating a new dialogue of regular meetings between the two partners in order to further that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, complained about the fact that the references to local authorities came so late in the White Paper. The first reference to them appears on page 16 of Chapter I of the document. We consider the role of local authorities extremely important and there is no 60 question of relegating references to them to the end of the document or merely to an appendix. Local authorities have been given a central role in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, complained about the cost of the White Paper. It seems it was thought excessive that it was not possible to make it freely available to everyone. However, the noble Lord will perhaps be pleased to know that free copies are to be sent to every school in the country, so that the pupils can become involved in the issues of environmental protection and how best to achieve that aim.
The noble Lord also drew attention to the late reference in the White Paper to the role of local authorities. I should point out to him that the photograph which appears with the heading of Chapter 18 on page 229 (which is devoted to institutions generally) is a cover photograph of Kirklees Town Hall. In my view, some noble Lords were being a little unfair on the Government in that respect.
We have made it abundantly clear that we are alive to the financial implications of the Bill for local authorities. Part I of the Bill provides for a system of full cost recovery charging which is designed to meet all the additional costs of administering the new system of prior authorisations. Indeed, the new controls replace a costly and inefficient system of post hoc controls under the public health Acts, and the result should be a net saving to the local authorities. The Department of the Environment has discussed in detail with the local authority associations what the initial level of charge should be.
A similar system of charging is provided under Part II, which provides local authorities with an entirely new source of finance. Efficiency savings should also result from the streamlined procedures for dealing with statutory nuisance under Part III. Finally, as regards Part IV, we have looked carefully at the results of the Coopers & Lybrand study of the likely cost implications for local authorities of the new litter duties. In the light of this we have taken an additional £50 million into account in calculating the revenue support grant for 1991–92 to cover the increased cost which may arise. I think that that is sufficient evidence to show that there is no need for the noble Lord's new clause in this respect, although I suspect that your Lordships will want to consider again the financial implications of the various parts of the Bill when we reach them.

§ 6.15 p.m.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his considered reply. Perhaps I should say from the outset that I shall not be pressing the amendment to a Division. Further, if he thought that I was trying to mislead the House by not giving quite the correct page numbers which refer to local government, I should tell him that that was not my intention.
I should like briefly to refer to a band of people who have been very good in local government over many years. Indeed, they were there even before I came into 61 local government. I am talking about the former public health inspectors, who I believe are now called environmental officers. They provide a tremendous service. I think that they are possibly nearer to the ground in relation to services for the public than most of the other local authority officers.
What worries me is the vast difference between people as regards the areas from which they come. I refer to the geographical areas they are born in and in which they have to live. I wonder whether special consideration will be given to certain areas. I am not trying to downgrade the necessity for environmental measures to be taken in the countryside. Of course there is a need for them. However, I am thinking especially about the areas which have been mentioned in the debate. I believe that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred to Birmingham. There are also certain areas of inner London and many other inner areas of other big cities in respect of which there are horrendous statistics to which I have already referred. Quite a large part of the problem is due to the environment in which people live; in other words, the industrial background. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues did not think that I was referring only to members of my own party when I talked about progressive people historically in local government. That was not my intention. If people thought that it was, hen they misunderstood what I was trying to say.
As regards the history of my own city, there was very little difference between the two parties in moving forward on a progressive basis. I should like to pay full tribute to all the people who took part in the development of that city and to all those from all political parties who took part likewise in all cities. I am not referring just to those in my own party; there were many progressive people involved.
We must encourage such people back into local government. They have left in droves because of the diminution in responsibilities. Moreover, and as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, there has been a gradual reduction in the responsibilities of local government and local councillors over many years by successive governments of the two major parties. That situation is much to be regretted. In my view this is an excellent chance for the Government to put something back, to give such encouragement and thereby get the right people to stand once again for local government appointments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 2 [Prescribed processes and prescribed substances]:

§ Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 4A Page 4, line 22, after ("regulations") insert ("(a)").

§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7B and 8A. Amendment No. 4A is purely an enabling amendment. When opening the debate on Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the fact that during the past 62 year, and especially in Committee, we were told to wait for the White Paper. I waited for the White Paper. Having studied it, I became convinced that the amendments to which I am now speaking were the right ones and might even achieve government approval.

§ The amendment builds on the Clause 2 system whereby the Secretary of State may designate any polluting process as one which requires authorisation. It has assumed that the production and use of CFCs will, between now and the Government's stated target date for their phasing out, be made a prescribed process under the Bill; in other words, Amendment No. 78 will result in processes involving CFCs becoming processes for which a licence will be required from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution which may also have specific conditions attached to it.

§ Amendment No. 8A goes one step further. It requires any regulation relating to CFCs to impose a complete ban on their production and use from 1st January 2000 at the latest. At the same time, it allows the Secretary of State the freedom to impose an earlier prohibition date if he so desires.

§ The amendments give legislative effect to the statements of intent contained in the White Paper which summarise the Government's view that Britain, together with the European Community, is committed to phasing out CFCs by 2000 and is looking at ways of bringing forward to 1997 the phase-out date in the EC.

§ Some noble Lords may remember that at the beginning of this year I introduced a Private Member's Bill designed to control and ban the production and use of CFCs. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, answered me and did not oppose the Bill; but unfortunately nothing has happened to it since it passed from the House. In that Bill I asked for CFCs to be banned by 1995 because there are countries in Europe which are banning the use of CFCs from 1994. I am putting forward reasonable amendments today which give the Secretary of State the power to implement at any time between now and 2000 at the latest a ban on CFC production and use. Although the White Paper's statement of intent is welcome, it is by no means a substitute for legislation.

§ In reply to Amendment No. 1, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that the White Paper is a statement of intent and that legislation will be brought forward over a period of time to implement the statements made in it. The Bill is the perfect opportunity to implement a statement of intent which has already been agreed in the EC. We should have it on our statute book. I therefore hope that the Government and the Minister will be able to accept the amendments. I shall not speak for any longer because in February I took up a great deal of the time of the House with my Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour
My Lords, one or two points are worth mentioning. In the refrigeration trade CFCs are often referred to by their trade name of Freon. It is still extensively used in deep freezers and is one of 63 the cheapest ways of producing the required temperature. As I understand it, domestic refrigerators use it below atmospheric pressure. If there is a leak, it is caused by air getting into the refrigerator, not by CFCs getting out.
Local authorities have an arrangement whereby they take away discarded refrigerators. They suck out the gas, which can be recycled. Carbon dioxide or dry ice, as it is sometimes referred to (CO₂) is used as a refrigerant in the bigger factories. It can contribute towards global warming. One of the great advantages of CO₂ on board ship is that, although it can be used as a refrigerant, it can also be used for fire fighting. They are gases that we cannot do away with.
I understand that Argon can be used as a refrigerant, but it is a great deal more expensive and much more elaborate. There are one or two other refrigerants. Although I have sympathy with the amendments, there are many occasions in engineering where such gases may still be required. On the other hand, I agree that there are many better and less harmful products which can be used in place of hair sprays and such items.

§ 6.30 p.m.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, it is not good enough merely to have sympathy with the terms of the amendment. If we are serious about the world's future, and if we recognise what is now clearly established—the relationship between the deterioration in the ozone layer and the use of CFCs—and say that we are sympathetic but can do nothing, all we are doing is to condemn the world and its population to extinction.
I shall take up the noble Earl on another issue: CFCs are not the only refrigerant available for refrigerators. During the passage of the Bill moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, we were approached by members of the trade who pointed out that their work in finding a substitute for CFCs and a way of disposing of refrigerators without releasing CFCs into the atmosphere was made impossible due to the lack of legislation.
I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in the issue which she has put quite squarely to the Government. She compared what was said in the White Paper and what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about it earlier this afternoon with the terms of this amendment. If the White Paper is a declaration of intent, how will that intent be carried into practice? This is a Government Bill, not an Opposition Bill nor a Private Member's Bill. It is a Government Bill into which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, proposes to insert the intent expressed in the White Paper. Surely, if the Government are committed to that intent and are serious, if they can be trusted to put their intent into practice, if they really intend to do what they say in the White Paper, here is an opportunity in their own Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, pointed out, if action can be taken in other European countries surely it can be taken here. The proposal has been 64 modified from the one that we debated under the earlier Private Member's Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson; it takes five years from the date. The amendment enables the Government to show their good faith in declaring that the White Paper is a statement of intent. The Government are on trial here: either they are serious and can be trusted and the White Paper means what it says, its words are a declaration of intent; if so, the Government will accept the amendment. Or if that is not the case, then they are again using rhetorical words in order to hide their paucity of action.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, it is not often that I have the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on any matter. I do so on this occasion because it has now been plainly stated by my noble friend Lady Robson and by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the intent of the Government is clear. I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in suggesting in any way that the Government are not sincere about their intent. They are quite sincere and mean to carry out that intent.
Here, on this important matter, is an opportunity for the Government to show and do something of great importance in the environmental field. I am sure that noble Lords would wish again to congratulate my noble friend on the Bill on chlorofluorocarbons that she steered through the House. I understand that that was the name of the Bill.
All that the House is being asked to do is to particularise Clause 2(1) by introducing three amendments. The main ones are the two to which my noble friend has spoken and the one clarifying the position on the Government's intent. I very much hope that all noble Lords will support the amendments.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to convince all noble Lords that the Government are very serious about the issue. While the intention behind the amendment is understandable, it is largely unnecessary. The practical effects of its adoption could actually be harmful. The amendment is also inappropriate because it takes a provision which gives the Secretary of State powers to react in a flexible manner to damaging industrial processes and requires him to use them in a particular way and for one particular set of processes, with little or no flexibility.
First, the amendment is unnecessary. There will be no new CFCs for industry to use after the end of the century. We have agreed to phase out their consumption by then under the Montreal Protocol. Within the European Community, we are pressing to bring this forward by three years, subject to exemptions for essential uses such as medical aerosols, should no safe substitutes be approved for them. This will, if we are successful, be contained in a Community regulation directly applicable in UK law by the end of the year.
Secondly, the amendment is unwelcome because all it prohibits is two processes which may well be desirable. One is the production of CFCs for export to developing countries which, under the Montreal 65 Protocol, have been given an extra 10 years to phase them out. With the financial help we have promised to give them, we hope that they will not need this extra time. But if they do need the extra time, we certainly do not want them to have to build their own CFC factories.
Thirdly, the amendment would also prohibit the recycling of CFCs for re-use. There are technical and other problems with the incineration of CFCs and should these remain unresolved, we would rather see them re-used—that was the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour—in existing equipment than released into the atmosphere. While existing equipment can re-use CFCs, there is no environmental benefic in requiring it to be prematurely scrapped instead.
This is a well-intentioned amendment. I have no quarrel whatever with its objective of minimising the emission of CFCs but, as I have outlined, the job is being tackled in other ways. The practical effect of the amendment would either be neutral or positively unhelpful. The objectives we share; the intention is a real one and we mean to achieve that objective. The Government cannot accept the amendments in their present form, but I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that in the Government's way the legislation will achieve what she wishes.

§ Baroness Robson of Kiddington
My Lords, I am absolutely astounded. I cannot express what I feel. Having used exactly what the Government stated in their White Paper they wanted to do, I am told that it is unnecessary because it is part of the agreement on the Montreal Protocol. We are a nation, we still need legislation to make certain that we will obey what the Montreal Protocol says. I should have thought that we would need legislation to ensure that.
The other plea was that we should feel sorry for third world countries. Of course we do. One of the reasons why CFCs are so dangerous is because the likely growth in third world countries is one of the greatest dangers in the future. The noble Baroness said that these countries needed 10 years. I agree with that. We in the western, developed world are working on alternatives, we are setting up funds to help them so that they do not have to use CFCs. The noble Baroness said that they needed 10 years. It is now 1990 and all I ask is that by the year 2000 this provision will be there. However, if in the meantime development can take place or extra dangers be proved, then under my amendment the Secretary of State will have the right to alter the date.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, would the noble Baroness give way? I am grateful to her. What I actually said was that the developing or underdeveloped countries would need an extra 10 years. During that extra 10 years we believe we could come to their aid with the recycling of CFCs. It will not be the production of CFCs but their recycling and use, rather than these countries having to develop their own factories as a result of this kind of inflexible legislation.

§ Baroness Robson of Kiddington
My Lords, with all due respect, we have 10 years until the year 2000. We have gone a long way already towards developing alternatives. To recycle CFCs, send them out to third world countries which will inevitably release them into the atmosphere is not the right way to go about matters. CFCs are one of the most dangerous of gases and we have no doubt as to the danger they cause to the ozone layer and their contribution to the greenhouse effect.
I just do not understand why an amendment which states exactly what the Government state in the White Paper cannot be accepted. How does the noble Baroness expect us to believe any other statement of intent in the White Paper if this amendment, which is exactly in line with what the Government have stated, cannot be accepted? I am terribly sorry, but I want to know what the rest of the House thinks about this.

§ 6.40 p.m.

§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4A) shall be agreed to?

§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Kintore, E.
Ailesbury, M.	Lawrence, L.
Airedale, L.	Listowel, E.
Ardwick, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Birk, B.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Longford, E
Briginshaw, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	McNair, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Nathan, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Nicol, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Parry, L.
Craigavon, V.	Phillips, B.
Crook, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B.	Richard, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	[Teller.]
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Rochester, L.
Falkland, V.	Ross of Newport, L.
Gallacher, L.	Serota, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Grey, E.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hampton, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]	Turner of Camden, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Underhill, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Varley, L.
Jay, L.	Walpole, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Kilbracken, L.	Winstanley, L.
Kinloss, Ly.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aldington, L.	Brigstocke, B.
Alexander of Weedon, L.	Brookes, L.
Ampthill, L.	Brougham and Vaux, L.
Arran, E.	Butterworth, L.
Balfour, E.	Caithness, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Campbell of Alloway, L.
Belstead, L.	Campbell of Croy, L.
Blatch, B.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Blyth, L.	Carr of Hadley, L.
Borthwick, L.	Cavendish of Furness, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Coleraine, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Colwyn, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Cox, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Merrivale, L.
Denham, L.	Mersey, V.
Dilhorne, V.	Mills, V.
Eden of Winton, L.	Milverton, L.
Elles, B.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Elton, L.	Munster, E.
Faithfull, B.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Ferrers, E.	Nelson, E.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Newall, L.
Gisborough, L.	Norfolk, D.
Glenarthur, L.	Norrie, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,	Orkney, E.
L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Hemphill, L.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Henley, L.	Polwarth, L.
Hesketh, L.	Reay, L.
Hives, L.	Rees, L.
Holderness, L.	Renton, L.
Hylton, L.	Rodney, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Ingrow, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Strange, B.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Lauderdale, F.	Sudeley, L.
Layton, L.	Teviot, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Liverpool, E.	Trefgarne, L.
Long. V. [Teller]	Trumpington, B.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Ullswater, V.
Lyell, L.	Vaux of Harrowden. L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Wise, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Young, B.
Margadale, L.

§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

§ 6.47 p.m.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5: Page 4, line 23, after second ("process") insert ("which may otherwise lead to unacceptable or unsustainable levels of pollution as specified in guidance under section 6 below, and").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 24, 25, 27 and 28.

§ I apologise for the relative complexity of this group of amendments in comparison with what we have been dealing with. Perhaps I may direct noble Lords' attention to the last line of the last amendment. That is what they are all about. Amendment No. 28 introduces new subsection (5A) which states that: The Secretary of State shall issue… guidance … specifying … levels of damages which he considers unacceptable or unsustainable— that is the Government's phrase— having regard to the need to secure the progressive reduction of overall levels of pollution". That, in effect, is what the amendments are all about.

§ Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are necessary because they refer forward to Clause 6 of the Bill. They make it possible to refer in Clause 6 to unacceptable or unsustainable levels of pollution. I must confess that I am slightly confused by the term "unsustainable level of pollution" which the Government have included in the Bill. However, the fundamental purpose of the amendment is to make sure that in Clause 6, which as 68 noble Lords will know is concerned with authorisations for processes, we are not simply maintaining the present position but seeking progressively to reduce the overall level of pollution. That is exactly what the Government themselves propose in the White Paper. In paragraph 2.11 they refer to the objective of establishing levels of emission that our air and water can safely tolerate with control mechanisms established on that basis.

§ It will be readily agreed, I believe, that our air and water are too heavily polluted. Therefore, if we are to achieve the Government's objectives set out in the White Paper we need measures for the progressive reduction of overall levels of pollution. As in so many amendments, we are seeking to avoid conflict between the inadequate terms of the Bill and the admirable objectives of the White Paper. The amendments would achieve that aim without breaking the mould of the Bill and the introduction of pollution control. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords the ultimate purpose of the amendments seems to be to secure that processes prescribed and authorised under Part I do not cause unacceptable pollution. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on that point, and I am delighted to remind him once again that the whole of' Part I of the Bill is directed to that very end. However, it is right to consider whether the detailed provisions of this part on scheduling processes and granting authorizations are watertight in that respect. I am certain that they are.
Turning first to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, their sole purpose is to prevent scheduling of processes which do not have the potential for unacceptable pollution, as defined in the guidance. I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State will be scheduling all processes which carry that potential, and I cannot see that the issuing by the Secretary of State of guidance on the matter will assist his own responsibilities in that regard. So far there is no loophole in Part I for the amendments to fill. That particular aspect of the amendments strikes me therefore as duplication of effort at best. However, there is a disadvantage hidden here, since the amendments specifically limit the scheduling of processes to those which may cause unacceptable pollution as defined in the guidance. That limitation is not a useful or welcome feature; it certainly is not necessary.
There is perhaps a stronger case for considering the next leg—whether the power for enforcing authorities to issue authorisations should similarly be limited by the duty to ensure that processes do not cause unacceptable pollution as defined in the Secretary of State's guidance. Again, I hope that the noble Lord would not argue that that is manifestly the intention of Clause 7 as it stands. Inspectors are already under a duty to ensure that the best available technique is used to prevent and minimise the release of prescribed substances. Those substances will be precisely those which, in the terms of the amendments, would otherwise cause unacceptable damage, unsustainable 69 pollution and so on. So, in other words, operators will be required to do all that technology can reasonably achieve to prevent such damage. They will also have to meet all existing environmental quality standards and similar external environmental requirements, and again those will be in place wherever needed to ensure that the noble Lord's objectives are met.
The amendments provide the additional hurdle for the inspector of satisfying himself that no unacceptable pollution will occur. But that is precisely the question which he will have been addressing in setting the BATNEEC requirements to prevent, minimise and render harmless. If the inspector has satisfied himself at that stage, he is bound to consider that no unacceptable pollution is being caused. If there were a risk of unacceptable pollution he could not consider the technology in question to be BATNEEC. The BATNEEC formula would require greater expenditure on better technology to prevent the unacceptable pollution. In short, an inspector could not meet the Clause 7 duties and objectives and yet consider that unacceptable pollution would occur. Therefore, the amendment achieves nothing at all.
If the noble Lord is concentrating more on the possibility of Secretary of State guidance, I would remind him of Clause 7(11) which requires enforcing authorities to have regard to any such guidance on appropriate techniques and options and also of his power at Clause 6(5) to give directions on conditions. Generally speaking, it must be for the enforcing authorities themselves to determine what is or is not required, but the powers are there to deal with cases where guidance or direction is required.
Amendment No. 25 simply spells out that the conditions in an authorisation are intended to ensure that there is no unacceptable damage to the environment. No amendment is needed to achieve that, which is the explicit purpose of Clause 7 as it stands.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 provide for the Secretary of State's guidance on what does or does not constitute acceptable levels of pollution. It should be clear by now that I see no need for such additional provision in this context or any other. In the case of IPC processes, it will be HMIP's own task to establish what, generally speaking, is an unacceptable level of pollution. That is what HMIP is there for. In particular instances the Secretary of State can, however, issue directions or guidance, or even under Clause 3 establish quality standards, objectives, limits over releases or any other requirements as to any aspect of processes.
This is ample evidence that the noble Lord's amendments would achieve nothing that is not already very amply catered for in the Bill as it stands. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, that is a very complex answer which I shall have to read carefully. However, I have a terrible feeling that I have heard it all before. We had the same debate in Committee when the answer was, in broad terms, that 70 we should wait and see what was in the White Paper, which would show that the Government had given adequate regard to the precautionary principle. Now that we have the White Paper we see that there is a general statement, which I have already quoted, about the need to establish levels of emissions that our air and water can safely tolerate and to set up control mechanisms based on those levels. However, there is no resulting determination by the Government to ensure that the Bill achieves that.
In a long and complex answer the Minister did not once refer to the most important phrase in the six amendments concerning the progressive reduction of overall levels of pollution. I am very dissatisfied with the answer that she gave. However, because it is so complex and because we have another opportunity to come back to the matter, which we may well have to take, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5A: Page 4, line 23, after ("which") insert ("(a)").

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5A is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 17A. I should like to speak to both amendments together.

§ The purpose of both amendments is to insist on adequate environmental labelling. That again is referred to in the White Paper—at paragraphs 17.29 to 17.31. The Government state that they are, establishing an official eco-labelling scheme to provide authoritative advice to consumers and encourage the production of more environmentally friendly products". That sounds all very well, except that when one looks at the scheme in more detail it appears that they are talking about a flexible voluntary scheme working with market forces. I am sorry to say that the evidence, which has been investigated to a considerable extent by the European Commission, is that a flexible voluntary scheme working with market forces will not succeed.

§ There are two kinds of objectives for labelling schemes. The first gives authoritative advice to consumers; for example, about how to dispose of the package when the product has been consumed or in what circumstances the product should be used in order to protect the environment. With that kind of labelling a flexible voluntary scheme could well work because the interests of the producer are the same as the interests of the consumer.

§ Amendment No. 17A tackles the much more difficult kind of environmental labelling; namely, the need to point out that products which claim to be environmentally friendly—or even which do not claim to be environmentally friendly—in fact are environmentally damaging. Such cases will occur. That is the case in which the interests of the consumer are not the same as the interests of the producer and where a flexible voluntary scheme relying on market forces simply will not produce results.

§ The Government have recognised that there is a considerable amount of so-called green labelling of so-called green products which grossly exaggerates 71 their environmental friendliness or the difference between what are supposed to be environmentally friendly products and others on the market which do not make such a claim. A number of manufacturers call their products environmentally friendly, very significantly in order to obtain a higher price although the difference between their products and normal products is not all that great. For those kinds of products and in those circumstances the Government's commitment to a flexible voluntary scheme is simply not adequate.

§ We have been very careful in the wording of this amendment. We have put "may" rather than "shall" because in the first place the European Commission is working on the problem and hopes to have a scheme by the end of 1991. We should not want anything to be done which would interfere with that process. Secondly, we know that there will have to be consultation with industry, commerce and the retail trade before we introduce an effective environmental labelling scheme. However, it is possible to do it by using symbols which will readily become as well known as, for example, the woolmark. It is possible to do everything that is proposed in this amendment without enormous damage to industry. Indeed, it will encourage industry to produce environmentally friendly products. That would be to its commercial advantage because they could continue to be exported to the world as a whole.

§ I commend this amendment as one which gives teeth to the Government's proclaimed adherence to the principle of environmentally friendly labelling and which will be a benefit to manufacturers as well as consumers. I beg to move.

§ 7 p.m.

§ Lord Reay
My Lords, the Government cannot accept this group of amendments. We support the need to provide more environmental information about products to consumers and others to inform their purchasing decisions. But that information must be in a manageable and readily understood form. The kind of information listed in Amendment No. 17A might not only be hard to interpret but, I understand, could require very large labels in some cases.
The Government have already committed themselves to introducing an official scheme of eco-labelling to enable consumers and others to identify by means of a simple logo products which are less damaging to the environment than alternative goods which serve the same purpose. This will be a voluntary scheme although, since labels will confer commercial advantage, it will be very much in a manufacturer's own interest to try to get a label. The award of a label will involve looking at the environmental effects of a product throughout its life cycle: manufacture, distribution, use and disposal. It will take account of matters such as energy consumption, packaging and recyclability. So it will cover the matters listed in Amendment No. I 7A. Labels will be awarded only to products which achieve a high standard.
72 We are making good progress in drawing up the scheme in collaboration with our European Community partners, for we believe that a single scheme covering the whole of the Community and with a single label will best serve everyone's needs. We hope that the first labels under it will be available by the end of next year. We are talking about an EC regulation which will have direct effect in this country. These amendments cut across the Government's proposals in this area and I therefore ask the House to reject them.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I thought that I had made it entirely clear that these amendments do not cut across the Government's objectives. They do not interfere with the process of consultation which is now in force and do not interfere with the desirability of a European-wide labelling system.
We are glad to know—not that it is news, exactly —that labels for environmentally friendly products will be available by the end of next year. That is exactly in line with the argument on environmental labelling that we have put forward throughout the course of the Bill. This amendment asserts that one has to go further. One has not only to reward environmentally friendly products. One must also warn people about products that are not environmentally friendly, perhaps in the way in which they are produced—in other words, whether they come from recycled content particularly and how they themselves can be recycled subsequently as waste products or as packaging.
The Government's response only goes part of the way towards dealing with the force of the argument put by these amendments. However, at this hour I do not think it appropriate for me to seek the opinion of the House on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the House sits again on Report at 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

§ 7.7 p.m.