Lords Sitting of 19 January 1995

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

Blood Donations
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that blood donated in the United Kingdom and surplus to the needs of the National Health Service is used as a free component of United Kingdom overseas aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): No, my Lords, because we do not collect surplus blood.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the Minister able to give an assurance that blood freely given in this country will not become the subject of some kind of market but will be disposed of at least as freely as it has been given?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can categorically give that assurance. There is absolutely no question of privatising the blood service and no question of selling blood, although we do sell some blood products which are surplus to our requirements. But just as we cannot run a car without petrol so we cannot run a health service without blood. Therefore, all the blood that is given through voluntary donations we need to use.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of reports in serious newspapers and on the BBC that blood is being sold abroad? That blood is from donors who gave it freely and thought it would contribute to the National Health Service. It is British blood and, according to reports, it is being sold overseas for money.
Baroness Cumberlege; My Lords, those reports are inaccurate. The National Blood Service immediately approached the newspaper concerned but unfortunately it chose not to correct the statement it had made. There is no question whatever that this nation would sell blood.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when, some years ago, I was a member of the Greater London Council, one of my colleagues went to prison and served a sentence for attempting to sell blood commercially outside this country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that the prosecution was fully supported throughout the country.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, at least until now, our National Blood Transfusion Service—which relies totally on voluntary blood donations—has been an outstanding success? We can be proud of its success in the international community. Does the noble Baroness realise that hints—even if they are not true—of the initiation of market principles and
750
commercialisation and now the new economies proposed by the new National Blood Authority might well deter many current donors and perhaps make it more difficult to recruit new donors?
Perhaps more to the point of the original Question, can the Minister say how far techniques for freezing whole blood have been developed? That would make it much easier to handle fluctuating supplies and fluctuating needs for blood of different groups rather than having to process it into blood products.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I endorse the noble Lord's comments about blood donors. We are enormously grateful to the 1.8 million people who freely give blood every year, to the benefit of others. I am not sure about the freezing of blood. I know that there is a story in the newspaper today about using crocodile blood which, I think, has some interesting connotations.
There is no question of the reorganisation of the National Blood Service deterring donors. The whole purpose is to make it easier for donors to give blood. The reorganisation is concerned with the treatment and delivery of blood, which we know can be improved. Indeed, we anticipate saving £10 million.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend will recollect that last year there was said to be a shortage of blood. Does she recognise that the willingness to give blood is often outweighed by the inconvenience of doing so? Would she regard it as not too wide of the Question to consider whether we could have facilities for giving blood in the Palace of Westminster?
Baroness Cumberlege; My Lords, I am absolutely sure that it would be very high quality blood, if not totally blue blood!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Baroness that, on being approached by the Government and asked to publish the Government's correction, a newspaper declined to do so? If that be the case, will she name the newspaper?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it was the newspaper called Today.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that much mischief is done by reporting which is wholly inaccurate? Will the Government take steps to make an example of the newspaper?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have a very interesting relationship with the newspaper industry. I think that we did all we could; in the end, we have to consider issues such as the freedom of the press. That is a very important freedom.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is intended to reduce the number of centres at which people can donate blood? If so, can she indicate how that will make it possible for people to continue giving blood in the way they have done? Surely, it will deter some blood donors.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, at the moment there are 15 centres in the country. The proposal is to

751
concentrate on 10 centres. Very few people—in fact, only 5 per cent. of all blood donors—give blood in the centres. What we are trying to do is to make local facilities better, more convenient and more conducive for people to give blood, using mobile centres and, as we have in the past, local facilities which are accessible to people and convenient for them.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of people who feel that their blood donor centre will be done away with have said that they will not give blood? Is it being made clear to them that they can continue to give blood in the towns where they live?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. The chairman of the National Blood Authority is putting a great deal of personal effort into this, talking to countless donors up and down the country, especially those where the centres will be rationalised.

Independent Television News
3.8 p.m.
Lord Donoughueasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the ownership structure of ITN to comply with Section 32(9) (a) of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Independent Television Commission announced in November 1994 that, in the light of the Government's review of media ownership, its earlier deadline for compliance with these requirements will be extended by one year to 31st December 1995.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, contrary to the provisions of the Act—which indicated a maximum shareholding of 20 per cent. in ITN—two shareholders currently control 72 per cent. of ITN? Is he further aware that those same two shareholders control 52 per cent. of ITV, which takes it news solely from ITN? Since they are in a position to arrange the supply contracts between ITN, which they control, and ITV, where they control 52 per cent., is that not a clear breach of the Fair Trading Act? Will the Minister refer this matter to the Director-General of Fair Trading?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the contract that the noble Lord describes was set in 1992, long before the changes that he described in the ownership either of ITV franchises or of ITN took place. The Government remain committed to encouraging accurate, impartial television news.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a report in yesterday's Evening Standard that the existence of a non-competition agreement between ITN and Reuters was revealed; and that this in effect deprived Channel 4 of seeking a competitive news
752
supply? Is that not a serious breach of competition policy, and will the Minister also refer this matter to the Director-General of Fair Trading?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. We will not refer either of the two matters to the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading. Regarding the point that the noble Lord makes about Channel 4, it is up to Channel 4, if it wishes and when the current contract comes to an end, to renegotiate the contract with a body other than ITN.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House has not so far found the answers satisfactory? I think that the Minister should attempt to answer the first question from my noble friend.
Does the Minister accept that Michael Green, who contributes a lot of money to the Tory Party, is chairman of ITN and also chairman of Carlton and therefore holds considerable power? Would it not be in his best interests, and indeed the interests of the country, if he were seen to be absolutely above suspicion in matters of this kind?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not know on what evidence the noble Lord bases his remarks about Mr. Green, the Chairman of Carlton Communications. I have absolutely no information that would corroborate anything that he said. It is important to remember that ITN remains statutorily obliged to produce high quality, impartial, independent news coverage—particularly in matters of political controversy or relating to current public policy. The Government remain committed to those principles. It is of course up to the ITC to enforce the 1990 Broadcasting Act. It can do so, and if it felt that ITN in any way fell below what is required it would enforce the restrictions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is not a question of whether this power is or is not abused. The question is whether it is contrary to public interest that the power should be monopolised in so small an area. Will the noble Viscount address himself to that point?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are addressing ourselves to that point. As I said in my original Answer, a government review is taking place. Noble Lords will all be aware that the media industry is undergoing rapid technological change which is blurring the distinctions between different forms of media format. Our review has examined whether the current ownership rules strike a satisfactory balance. In doing so, it has looked at the need for diversity and choice for audiences while seeking to encourage UK interests to play an active and competitive part in national and international markets. That is why the ITC took the decision to extend the deadline by one year, to 31st December 1995.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the Minister confirm the figures that were given by my noble friend? Is it right that two companies have 72 per cent. of ITN? If that is so, is it a percentage of which the Government approve; and do they intend to let it remain permanent?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the figures are correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard points out. The reason that

753
this took place is that the Government changed the rules last year on the number of licences that a single person could have as regards ITV franchises. We are looking at this matter very closely. That is why the ITC decided to extend the deadline by one year.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minster give us an assurance that this situation is being frozen while the Government complete their review of cross-media ownership? Will he give the House an assurance that, once that review is over, this situation will not be allowed to continue, but that proper plurality of ownership in ITN will be restored?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have to remember that there is plurality in the new service. After all, Reuters already provides the new service for GMTV, the national morning ITV licensee. The ITC is empowered by the Broadcasting Act to review the performance of nominated news providers and to determine whether another body might qualify for nomination. It intends to review the performance of ITN towards the end of this year.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will appreciate that this is not a situation which can continue. This is something which really has to be properly put right. The way matters are proceeding at the moment is not fair.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand the concerns of my noble friend, but the matter of the shareholding in ITN is totally separate from the fact that the company has to produce high quality, impartial, independent news coverage. That is an entirely different matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that case why was the original legislation enacted in order to make sure that nobody had more than 20 per cent. of the shareholding?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. That legislation was enacted, as indeed was another piece of legislation which said that the ITV companies as whole should not control more than 50 per cent. That is why we are reviewing the matter, and that is why the ITC has extended its deadline.
Noble Lords: Next Question!

NHS Trust Chief Executives: Pay
3.16 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the issues raised by the statistics cited in the article on NHS trust chief executive pay in IDS Management Pay Review, January 1995.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we need high quality management to ensure that the multi-billion pounds of taxpayers' money we spend each year on the National Health Service are used to secure maximum
754
improvements in healthcare. Decisions on the salaries of chief executives must be matters for local determination in the light of performance and other criteria.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minster for that Answer. However, is she aware that a report in the press highlighted that those producing the report were meeting great reluctance from some trusts to provide the fullest information as to where salaries ended and expenses began? Can the Minister tell us whether there is a limit on expenses, a maximum, that can be drawn by the chairmen of the new health trusts and the chief officers? Does she agree that if there is not, it is about time that one was imposed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is not a ceiling. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been very firm and has put out guidance to the service that, in future, health authorities and trusts must publish in their annual report the remuneration and expenses of managers in the National Health Service; and also that they should set up a remuneration committee to scrutinise terms of service in line with the Cadbury Report on corporate governance.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, given the fact that the driving energy of the present system of organisation depends on a high degree of decentralisation of responsibility, can the Minister assure the House that she will rigorously resist attempts to standardise the way in which the different trusts conduct their affairs? But at the same time, will she also rigorously insist that the trusts comply with the necessary corresponding discipline to report most fully and accurately on what they do? It is quite clear at the moment that they are not all doing so.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I can give my noble friend that assurance. I endorse his view that local decisions are much more pertinent: they take into account local conditions, and indeed the talents and expertise within an organisation. That is bearing fruit already; as we see, there is improving service in the National Health Service. Waiting-lists have almost halved in the past five years, and more and more patients are being treated every year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister accept, however, that this is a very disturbing report—not simply in relation to the levels of pay for trust executives to which my noble friend referred, but also in relation to the points that were made by her noble friend about accountability? How do the Government respond to the following quotation from the report:
"As last year, the availability and disclosure of pay information in the accounts left much to be desired. Many trusts ignored requests for copies of annual accounts"?
How can that situation be redressed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is up to non-executives to ensure that those conditions are complied with. As I said, from 1st April health authorities and trusts will have to publish in their annual

755
reports all the details that are being sought by your Lordships this afternoon and remuneration committees will be set up.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, from what the Minister has just said to my noble friend on the Front Bench, does she understand that some people have refused to do it and have got away scot-free? What sanctions can be used against those who dig in their heels and say that they will not do it? Does she agree that in the report there was an element which implied that that had in fact happened?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the National Health Service is very extensively audited. There is not only the local audit, but there are also audits by the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission. In the final analysis, the Treasury also takes a very keen interest in the matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is very encouraging to hear the Minister speak out so sturdily for local discretion and local judgment. Bearing in mind the respect with which she is held in this House, will she use her influence to ensure that other parts of government, notably those dealing with local government, take the same view?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I am a staunch supporter of local government. I served in it for many years. But local government has to comply with the national policies of this country. I found it distressing in 1976 when I saw a whole change in local government and it declared UDI. I think that it went off the rails. I was very disappointed by that. I believe that local government has a role in this country, but once it tries to ignore what the national Government are doing, it runs into trouble.

Chechnya: Russian Military Intervention
3.20 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned about the actions of the Government of the Russian Federation in their reconquest of Chechnya and whether they have made any representations to the Russian Government concerning the bombardment by air and land of the city of Grozny.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are seriously concerned at the way the Russian military intervention is being handled and in particular at the appalling civilian casualties. We have made urgent representations to the Russian Government to put an end to the fighting, to allow humanitarian relief and to work for a political agreement which allows the Chechen people to express their identity within the Russian Federation. We hope that the ceasefire announced for today will pave the way for a peaceful settlement. We support the efforts of the Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe to
756
promote a settlement and welcome Russia's acceptance of this. We await the outcome of a visit to Moscow and Chechnya by the OSCE's representatives.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I should be grateful if he would elucidate the announcement of the ceasefire today. There was nothing about a ceasefire on the one o'clock news—at least on the BBC. Can he explain why Her Majesty's Government consistently refuse to recognise the right to independence of the Chechens? Is it not a fact that the Chechens are not Russian and throughout their whole history have never wanted to be Russian? Does Chechnya not have as much right to independence as India, Jamaica or even southern Ireland?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may take my noble friend's question in two parts. I am afraid that I bring gloomy news about the ceasefire. Although it was due to come into effect today, all the evidence I have heard is that it does not seem to be working. So far as concerns the position of the Chechens in the Russian Federation, it is important that we appreciate that the Russian Federation comprises 87 different component parts. The Chechens are part of that federation, which, in turn, was created by the dissolution of the old Soviet Union. They are and historically have been for some time part of Russia.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, quite apart from the merits of this terrible series of events, is it not possible that there is a general lesson to be learnt; namely, that air strikes are not a particularly humane way of settling internal disputes?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his comment. It certainly would appear to be the case that in this instance the tactics adopted by the Russian army by its own terms of reference have not been successful. Obviously, that provides a lesson for others in other circumstances.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome the statement by the noble Lord and in particular the fact that the OSCE is to send a mission to Moscow and Chechnya. Can he say why it has taken so long to react when it was clear from the beginning that Russia was violating several of the provisions of the code of conduct on the politico-military aspect of security which, just a month previously, was agreed at the summit meeting in Budapest? Was it not clear in particular that it was harming civilians on a colossal scale and that the military forces engaged in Chechnya were not subject to constitutional control by a civilian authority? Further, does he agree that the use of tanks, artillery and bombers was totally incommensurate with the need to restore order in the territory?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reference to Article 36 of the code of conduct, which has direct bearing on the matter in hand. The OSCE has in fact already been involved in this matter. Mr. Gyarmati, the representative of the Hungarian presidency of the OSCE, has been in Moscow twice already talking to the Russian authorities. He hopes to

757
go there again next week. Certainly, it is Her Majesty's Government's view and also, I understand, the view of the other members of the European Union that the OSCE is probably the appropriate international body to bring pressure on the Russians and help mediate with the Chechens to try to draw to a rapid conclusion this miserable episode.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sure the whole House supports the Government when they say that there should be a cessation of violence and greater access for humanitarian relief. The noble Lord added a third item, which I only partially caught. It seemed to have the flavour of urging a diplomatic settlement on the basis of self-determination for the Chechen people. If that is the Government's position, will the noble Lord spell it out? Are they now saying that a diplomatic settlement should take place only on the basis of satisfying the position of the Chechen people or are they looking at other matters? Would he be kind enough to read out what he read out before? No doubt that is the authorised version from those unknown and unseen people.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord opposite for not having articulated my words properly in my original reply. As I understand it, the position is that within the Russian Federation, the various 87 components to which I referred earlier do not necessarily share the same relationship to the centre in an identical manner. I understand that it has been proposed by Prime Minister Chernomyrdin of Russia that the relationship between Chechnya and the centre should perhaps be modified to give that part greater autonomy than it has enjoyed hitherto. This is precedented elsewhere in the Russian Federation and might provide the basis of a negotiated way forward.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to this question but that was not quite the point that I was making. When he first answered the Question, the noble Lord read out three points. One was the cessation of violence; the second concerned access to humanitarian aid. It was the third one that I did not quite catch. I should be obliged if he would repeat it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall repeat verbatim what I read out before. The third point was to work for a political agreement which allows the Chechen people to express their identity within the Russian Federation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is that the Government's view?
Lord Inglewood: That is right. My Lords, I hope that I elaborated on the background to it in my earlier remarks.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that since the end of World War II, most western European nations have allowed the principle of self-determination to operate in outlying territories which they have acquired generally by conquest within the past 150 years or so? Does he further agree that most eastern European and indeed Asian nations have not yet
758
followed suit? Does he agree that it is time that they were persuaded to follow the democratic example set by the West?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I hope I mentioned in my earlier remarks, it is our wish that all the erstwhile countries of the Eastern bloc acquire complete democratic practices. This is a matter that we want to see implemented, so that when episodes of the kind that we are now discussing occur, there will be no need for military conflict and civil war.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, following from the last question, perhaps I may ask whether the Government accept that self-determination does not necessarily mean independence and separation? There are ways of achieving it without going to such extremes.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government consider contacting all the British Commonwealth governments together with the United States—probably the most formidable organisation in the world of mankind? If the British Commonwealth and the United States of America were to put great pressure on Russia, I am sure that much greater notice would be taken of them than of the United Nations.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord can rest assured that the Government will leave no stone unturned in trying to solve this problem satisfactorily.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, if, in a referendum, the Chechnyan people show that they want independence, will Her Majesty's Government recognise their right to it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation. If, within the constitution of that federation, they wish to secede and that was agreed by all the parties concerned, it would be a matter for them.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES in the Chair.]
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Guidance on sustainable development and other aims and objectives]:
[Amendment No. 37 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert:
(", and shall follow the principles outlined in Schedule (Sustainable development: aims and objectives) to this Act").
The noble Lord said: I remind the Committee that Clause 4 of the Bill requires Ministers to give guidance to the agency with respect to the aims and objectives which they—that is, the Ministers—consider appropriate for the agency to pursue in the performance of its functions.
As I argued on Second Reading, I do not believe it is good enough to leave it to Ministers to give guidance on how the agency should perform its functions from time to time. Parliament should have a role in deciding what the agency should do; after all, Parliament is being asked to pass a Bill which gives the agency important powers.
In moving Amendment No. 38, for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 147. Indeed, Amendment No. 38 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 147. Therefore, if the Committee accepts Amendment No. 38, Amendment No. 147 becomes consequential in the strict sense of the term.
The Government have been kind enough to give us the draft guidance that Ministers propose for the agency. Indeed, there was discussion last Tuesday on the press release issued by the Government entitled, Draft Outline of Scope of Guidance to the Environment Agency Under Clause 4 of the Environment Bill. It is all very well for the Government to say that from time to time Ministers will decide what the agency will do. I suppose that if I were in the unhappy position of a Minister I would say that I should like to reserve my position from day to day on what the agency should be doing. But, as I said at Second Reading, I do not believe that that is adequate for Parliament. It is up to Parliament to decide what the agency should be doing. I have therefore taken the liberty of using the draft guidance provided by the Minister as a basis for the schedule contained in Amendment No. 147. It is really to that amendment that I wish to address my rather detailed remarks.
Amendment No. 147 cuts across—in many respects it wisely cuts across—the arguments we have had in the past day or so in relation to the aims and objectives of the agency. These are government aims and objectives and I see no reason therefore why the Government should not accept them being put into the schedule. Amendment No. 147 says,
"The overall aim of the Agency shall be to help to promote sustainable development through high quality, integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement".
I agree absolutely with those words. Paragraph 2 of the proposed schedule goes on to the main objectives, with all of which I agree. I do not want to bore the Committee by going through the list, but it includes,
"operate to high professional standards … provide clear and readily available advice",
and so forth. They are all desirable aims and objectives.
When we come to pollution control I am again in agreement with paragraph 3, apart from one small caveat which occurs in sub-paragraph 3(b), at the end of which the extract reads,
"to follow relevant developments in technology and techniques".
If the Government accept my new schedule, I should prefer to use the word "promote". But that is something we can consider at a later stage of the Bill if the Government accept the new schedule, perhaps as amended by them in certain matters of draftsmanship. Paragraph 4 is, in all respects, sensible, as is paragraph 5 on page 20 of the Marshalled List.
I come to paragraph 7 of the proposed new schedule; namely,
"Contribution to Conservation of Nature and the Heritage".
I believe that that is reasonable. I would like to go a little further along the lines taken by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, at Second Reading when he spoke about windfarms. That is a particular concern of mine as I know it is of his, he being the chairman of CPRE and myself being president of CPRW.
Paragraph 8 of the schedule allows Ministers to review existing guidance and to,
"consolidate, revise and update that guidance as they consider necessary".
I am not saying that the proposed schedule should be set in stone. I accept that from time to time Ministers may wish to update their guidance. Nevertheless, I believe that this schedule deserves the attention of the Committee and government support because it is not my wording, but that of the Government. It is a wording which I support bar one or two amendments to which I may wish to return at a later stage of the Bill if the Committee accepts this schedule.
The fundamental principle of Amendments Nos. 38 and 147 is that Parliament, not Ministers from time to time, should set the basic, strategic terms and objectives of this agency. Since I have "stolen" the Government's words in compiling the schedule, I very much hope that the Government and the Committee will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I have a great deal of sympathy with the main purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has in mind although I do not agree with the way in which he attempts to achieve it. As I shall show, I believe that it may cause real confusion. Surely, the aims and objectives to be pursued by the agency in performing its functions are fundamental to the whole of the Bill and they should be clearly and emphatically stated by Parliament in a clause of the Bill. These matters should not be left to be decided by any Minister, with various contingent responsibilities as regards the Bill, and conveyed to the agency merely by issuing guidance. We do not even know whether the guidance is to be written or oral.
Such guidance could be rather vague, hedged about with conditions and reservations and varied from time to time and from Minister to Minister. There might even be minor conflicts behind the scenes as to the guidance given by one Minister and another. I have not given notice to my noble friend, but I have to say with great

761
respect and apologies to him that Clause 4 will not do. The Government should replace it with another clause which clearly expresses the intentions of Parliament.
I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, proposes. Strangely enough, he intends to keep Clause 4, but to add to it the contents of his long schedule about which I shall speak in a moment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for conceding an intervention. I am sure that the noble Lord was present at our discussion of proposed Amendment No. 1 on Tuesday when the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, quite rightly described it as a "strategic amendment". The noble Lord and I have been involved in strategic amendments. In Clause 1 we have the central purpose of what the Bill is about.
I personally could not support the drafting of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, to Clause 1. The Committee did not accept it, but nevertheless, as I indicated, I was quite happy to accept the principle of a strategic amendment. We have had no comfort from the Government on that principle. In response to the noble Lord, that is why I seek to introduce the aims and objectives in the way I have because I believe that the Government have turned their face against a strategic amendment which I believe the noble Lord has in mind.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clarification. Perhaps I may say in passing that I regret that I could not be here on the first day of the Committee stage in order to support my noble friend Lord Norrie. I had a transport problem and that is why I could not get here. I was very sorry. I was here later that day.
I shall have to repeat slightly what I was explaining. The method chosen as regards these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not suitable partly because it retains Clause 4 and merely adds to it a reference to his new schedule which contains very important matters. They might very well overlap with the new Clause 1, if we ever have one.
The way in which the matter is expressed in Amendment No. 147 is not something with which I can entirely agree. Although I do not agree with the drafting I agree with the substance of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2(a). Those deal with matters of principle which should somehow go into the Bill.
As regards paragraph 2(b) I am puzzled by the expression,
"developing single points of contact".
That could mean all kinds of things and we do not know what they are. Sub-paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) are provisions which one would take for granted in administering a Bill of this kind. It would be good governmental practice to do those things and I believe that it is generally accepted at present as such. But those are matters of detail on which I do not wish to spend a great deal of time.
I find matters very difficult when we come to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule because they overlap with what is in Clause 5 of the Bill already. As regards paragraphs 5 and 6, they overlap with what is in Clause
762
6 of the Bill. Paragraph 7 partly overlaps with Clauses 7 and 8. Therefore, as a matter of drafting and of getting the Bill as a cohesive and sensible document, and although I have much sympathy with the noble Lord's motive, I would not be prepared to agree his method of doing it. If it comes to a vote I could not support the noble Lord in the Division Lobby.
I conclude by saying to my noble friend Lord Ullswater, whose handling of this Bill has been impeccable so far, that I hope that we shall not leave such important matters as the aims and objectives to be pursued by the agency merely to ministerial guidance of some vague kind.
Baroness Hamwee: I very much agree with the point of view that has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As we discussed on Tuesday, we on these Benches also take the view that Clause 4 simply will not do. To my mind, aims and objectives are rather different from guidelines and guidance. The latter have a place in fleshing out what should be agreed by Parliament as to the primary purpose and objectives of the agency. I find Clause 4 confusing in that the guidance can be changed from time to time. Furthermore, the agency is not required to do any more than "have regard" to the guidance. It is not even required to follow it. My conclusion is a little different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because, feeling as strongly as I and my colleagues on these Benches feel, if it comes to a vote we shall support the amendment because we believe that it is important to establish the principle.
However, I too have some trouble with the draft schedule. It is not surprising that there is trouble with the draft schedule because it replicates draft guidance on which the Government are currently consulting and which, because it is guidance, is better directed at initial priority-setting rather than at the fundamental aims and objectives. The provisions on pollution control refer to "industrial emissions". We know that the issue of industrial emissions requires major consideration and a great deal of work, but so too does that of traffic pollution. Indeed, I believe that the Government have said the same thing only today. Therefore, it is perhaps striking the wrong balance to include in a schedule to the Bill the provision that the agency shall deal in particular with industrial emissions.
I should add that I find certain provisions a little odd in this place. I refer to those dealing with maintaining and developing salmon, trout, freshwater and eel fisheries. No doubt those are areas to which regard should be had—not that I know a great deal about them—but the economic considerations which that maintenance and improvement must involve will need to be set in the context of the economic considerations which we shall address later in our consideration of the Bill.
A number of semantic points could be made. I do not want to put it any higher than that, but I think that it is inappropriate to use words such as "particularly" and "including" in a Bill because that leaves the reader a little confused about the priorities.

763
To summarise, we feel that Clause 4 is not merely an inadequate clause; it is a dangerous clause and for that reason we support the principle of what is proposed although not the detail.
Lord Marlesford: I, too, feel considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has put forward, but I accept the modifications suggested by my noble friend Lord Renton. It is a question of striking a balance between what is included in the Bill in order to make the purpose and scope of primary legislation clear, while leaving sufficient flexibility for sensible application of that legislation in due course. I do not think that the balance is right at the moment and I hope that the Government will look at it again. Some of us will want to change the balance in relation to later provisions in the Bill. Although I do not want to debate this now, perhaps I may give one example. I believe that when we come to consider hedgerows many of us will feel that it would be desirable for the scheme to be spelt out in a good deal more detail than at present. Equally, however, when we reach Clause 37, which relates to costs and benefits, some of us may well feel that it is inappropriate to spell out that aspect in the Bill and that such provisions might be better left to guidance.
I recognise the difficulty on this question of balance. As I have said, I do not think that the Government have got it quite right yet. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is not intending that his present formula should be inserted in the Bill at this stage, but I hope that the Government will be able to return with provisions that strike a better balance.
Lord Elton: Somewhat to my surprise, I am not entirely persuaded by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Marlesford and those who have spoken in support of the proposals, if with some modification. The two questions that we must ask about the amendment are: is it necessary and is it apt? On the question of whether it is necessary, it is claimed that it is necessary in order to show what the primary purpose and functions of the agency shall be. It may be convenient to focus those provisions in a separate place, but they already appear in the Bill.
Clause 1(1) states that the body is to have,
"the purpose of carrying out the functions transferred or assigned to it by or under this Act".
We discover what they are later because Clause 2(1) (a) states that they are the functions of the National Rivers Authority while paragraph (b) refers to the functions of the waste regulation authorities. Those matters are already spelt out in existing statutes. There is no question about the functions or purposes of the agency. The only question is whether they should be spelt out separately and clearly in a different place. That may be attractive, but it does not seem necessary.
Clause 6 states:
"It shall be the duty of the Agency … to promote … the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty",
of the waterways. Clause 7 states that Ministers shall have a contributory duty, with paragraph (a) specifying that a Minister shall perform his functions,
764
"so to exercise any power conferred on him or it with respect to the proposals as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest".
If your Lordships read the Bill in the way in which it will be necessary for those who will have to operate it to read it, those aims and objectives will become clear.
Therefore, on the first question of whether the provisions are necessary, I for one am not entirely convinced that they are. On the question of whether the provisions are apt, whatever the origins of the passage, the language does not seem to be the appropriate language of statute because it is too general and aspirational to be subject to judicial review. It seems to be too much a question of judgment. I shall not go down the list, but although that language is clearly understood in the boardroom or across the dinner table, it is very difficult to adjudicate on it. Therefore, I do not think that the language is appropriate.
If there is a difficulty to be resolved, I think it is that Clause 4(1) is very sweeping and general although subsection (2) is very necessary. The question that we must ask—it may be the fear that lies behind what noble Lords have been saying—is whether the Minister is being given the power totally to change the direction of the agency and what it is seeking to achieve—to nullify the intentions of Parliament or to subvert them in some way. The answer to that is to make the Minister's proposals subject to some parliamentary process. If the noble Viscount intends to return to this point at a later stage—it may or may not be necessary and I hope that it is not—I hope that among the alternatives that he will consider is a provision to ensure that if a Minister wanted to make some direction to the agency, he should not be able to do so in secret, as it were, but should have to do so under the eye of Parliament.
4 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suffer from the problem we identified on Tuesday when we discussed a group of amendments on sustainable development. Much of that debate served only to reaffirm our belief that it would indeed be dangerous to seek to set out on the face of the Bill detailed guidance on the agency's aims and objectives, and on the way it is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. We need a much more flexible means of guiding the agency, over time, as to its aims and objectives and the contribution it is to make towards achieving sustainable development.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton who described how the Bill sets in place the objectives for the new agency. As many Members of the Committee have confirmed, the concept of sustainable development is complex and one upon which international understanding continues to develop. It requires effective reconciliation of the pursuit of economic development and of environmental protection. It is difficult to express that succinctly in legislation without the risk of giving undue emphasis to some aspects or implying that other aspects are not normally part of sustainable development and so need to be listed separately.

765
While general international acceptance of the Brundtland definition is offered by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in their Amendment No. 351, which we discussed on a previous occasion, as time goes by we and others see more clearly the extent of the implications of trying to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Our scientific knowledge increases as we seek to understand the impact of specific pollutants and the way they interrelate and impact on the environment, and how we can mitigate those effects.
We believe therefore that it would be wrong to try to define inflexibly on the face of the Bill—as the proposed schedule would do—the aims and objectives of the agency and the way it is to seek sustainable development. Clause 4 requires Ministers to give such guidance which allows the flexibility for this to be developed from time to time as our increasing awareness of the impact of our activities on the environment show us better ways of ensuring that development is sustainable.
I accept that Amendment No. 147 reflects the issues and principles that at this stage we have in mind to incorporate in the guidance to be issued to the agency, and which we made widely available on Tuesday by means of a press notice. But that is not the final version; that will be issued only after a process of wide consultation. Indeed, on Tuesday there was discussion as to the meaning of the overall aim of the agency to help to promote sustainable development through high quality, integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement, and whether the overall aim should include management.
We would want to consider this carefully, taking account of a number of views—not least those expressed during this debate—and in further consideration of the issues here and in another place. I believe that we need to take time and to involve a wide group of experts in the development of the guidance. It is vital that we get it right and that we can develop it in the light of new awareness of environmental risks.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, says that his proposed schedule (Amendment No. 147) would not set the sustainable development guidance in stone. It would, however, set the aims and objectives of the agency in stone. Paragraph (2) of the schedule would also require the guidance—however revised—to accord with the previously published sustainable development strategy, Cm. 2426, identified in the paragraph. There may be need in the future to amend the details of the strategy, a very long document which sets out the best understanding as at January 1994.
I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Renton. I could not agree with his approach, although he did indicate that the words in the proposed schedule were not entirely those that he would want to see if the schedule were to be put onto the statute book. My noble friend recognises, I believe, some of the difficulties I am trying to explain and also the fact that the guidance is at the moment in draft. I have emphasised that during our debates because it is important that we should be
766
able to revise the guidance and bring it up to date. I am anxious that we should not be tied down to particular words on the printed page at this stage.
I also believe that the agency itself cannot achieve sustainable development or decide what it is. The agency will make a major contribution towards achieving sustainable development in Britain but it cannot control activity in areas such as land use planning, resource use and energy efficiency because those are outside the scope of its functions. As the sustainable development strategy made clear, the achievement of sustainable development must involve the whole country and not just particular sections, however important their contributions will be. It needs to involve local government, business, the voluntary sector, Churches and, not least, the public.
As to the overall co-ordination of the national effort, it is for government itself to take decisions about economic development and environmental protection. It cannot, therefore, be right for the agency to take charge of national policy on sustainable development.
I sum up by saying that defining the contribution that the agency is to make towards sustainable development will be a complex but fundamental task for government. We recognise that. That is why we made available the outline of the scope of the guidance under Clause 4, and we intend to expand the note into a more detailed draft for wide consultation when the Bill is considered in another place. It is right to take time and to involve a wide constituency in the preparation of the guidance. I therefore call on the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or any other noble Lord replies, perhaps I may put this to the Minister. Of course one must accept that on matters of detail there would have to be flexibility—flexibility based upon experience gained. That is so. But, surely, it must be flexibility within broad principles stated by Parliament. If we are to have a new Clause 1 which sets out those broad principles clearly and adequately, then there would be no need for them to be replaced in Clause 4.
Is not the real trouble that Clause 4 as it stands will not only enable flexibility in the widest sense to take place but that it will be done behind the back of Parliament? Is there not the risk of Ministers themselves varying the guidance and of any one Minister changing his mind sometimes too quickly? The system of guidance, as put forward in the clause, simply will not do.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may seek to answer that point. It is of course the new proposition that Clause 4 is adding to the Bill that gives the concept of guidance its unusual position, one which has not been applied to other such bodies. I believe that the concept of the guidance being widely debated while the Bill is before Parliament indicates how much we want to hear everyone's views.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, we on these Benches would like to see the aims and the objects of the Bill entrenched on

767
the face of the Bill, and to that extent we support the amendment and, if it comes to a vote, we shall vote for it.
I do not accept the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, ingenious though they are, that because the aims and objects of all the bodies taken over by the new agency are already entrenched in statute, there is no need to write them into the Bill. If we were simply passing a consolidation Bill that would be a valid argument. But we are not passing a consolidation Bill; this is a very important measure in its own right and the aims and objectives should be written on the face of the Bill.
I, along with many Members of the Committee, have considerable doubts about the details of the schedule. It has, after all, as the noble Viscount said, been adapted from a draft. It seems to me the kind of matter which, if the Committee were to accept the amendment, we should want to put right on Report. I believe that we can leave that aside. The principle is tremendously important, and it is the principle that we support.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, responds to the amendment, I should like to indicate my support for it, and to comment further upon what the Minster said just now, thus prolonging the debate that we had the other evening on sustainable development. I was glad that he took the opportunity to develop the Government's thinking on this matter, but I fail to see why the argument that sustainable development means more than the activity of the agency is an argument against specifying more clearly the agency's role in relation to sustainable development. That is the crux of the argument that we are having.
The agency will obviously be an agency of sustainable development within its own remit. It is hoped that it will also be an agency which will influence outwith its own remit other government activities; an agency that will be able to advise other departments and secretaries of state on aspects of policy arising out of its environmental protection role, and its general remit as an environment agency.
I hope that that is an argument for specifying the agency's role much more clearly. I hope that the Government can have another look at this matter, because there is clearly a feeling on all sides of the Committee that Clause 4, and the whole question of how we spell out the relationship between the specific activity of the agency and the overall objective set out in the January 1994 Government paper, should be clarified.
Lord Moran: I shall speak briefly in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I am not at all happy about Clause 4. It provides for the agency's aims and objectives to be informed by guidance from Ministers to which it has to have regard; that is, not just the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and no doubt there would be advice from the President of the Board of Trade on not hampering the activities of industry, and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on not spending any money.
768
So far as I can see, the guidance is to be totally removed from Parliament, and although we have been assured that it will be public, it will be worked out in Whitehall, and environmental interests will be subject to all the pressures from other departments that do not subscribe to them. For those principal reasons, it is undesirable and should be removed.
If the clause is retained, as a minimum the Government should indicate that they are prepared to amend the clause to ensure that there is proper consultation on any draft guidance. At the moment there is no requirement on the Government even to consult the new environment agency itself, let alone all the other bodies which should properly be asked for their views. There should also be an opportunity for Parliament to consider and comment upon any guidance before it is made.
On the question of sustainable development, we have all said a great deal—probably too much—but I still have a strong feeling that the word "development" should not occur in the Bill. I cannot think that the environment agency should have anything to do with development. There are plenty of organisations concerned with economic development, and rightly so. It is for government to balance the needs of economic development and environmental protection. The agency should be concerned with all aspects of environmental protection and not with development. That is fundamental. I hope therefore that the Government will be prepared to think again about that issue.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on the issue of sustainable development. It seems to me to be a separate issue within the clause, and might be seen by some Members of the Committee as the baby within the bath water. Surely when there is an agency such as this, which will control the manner in which development is permitted to interact with the environment—that is its function—a balance must be struck between short and long-term gain. It is not at all unlikely that there may be some things which, when considering the immediate benefits to the environment, may be considered to be a loss, and which, if not permitted because of a simple interpretation of the statute, would deny us the benefits of doing something which, in the long term, would be sustainable.
I am finding it difficult, because I am trying to think of an illustration, and that is not easy to do. I hope that I have made the point that my noble friend the Minister has made clear that sustainable development is an issue which touches every department of state and every economic and leisure activity of mankind. That cannot be within the sole right of action of one agency such as this. It must therefore be subject to some direction so that it is kept in step with the remainder of the economy and human activity.
That being so, it may well be that where there is a balance to be struck between the short-term benefits to agriculture, the community, or the purity of the atmosphere and the sustainability of our economic

769
activity altogether, it is necessary for the national body—the Government acting through Parliament—to give a direction to the agency.
Lord Moran: With the leave of the Committee, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is saying, but it may be difficult for the environment agency to apply the principle of sustainable development—whatever it may mean—to, say, functions such as fisheries or flood defence. I cannot offhand think how it will do that.
Viscount Ullswater: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, gets to his feet, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that under Clause 35(2), for instance, the agency has a duty to provide the Secretary of State or the Minister with such advice and assistance as he may request. Then the noble Lord, as I understood him, said that it must be for Ministers to decide on advice. They must be able to decide about sustainable development. That is the premise to which I return: it is for Ministers to decide what guidance they should give to the agency about the contribution that the agency makes towards sustainable development. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who said that the agency cannot decide for itself what it should be doing towards sustainable development; it must act on the advice of Ministers who have the responsibility for that decision.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have participated in this important debate. I believe that I am right in saying that most Members of the Committee, bar the noble Lord, Lord Elton, believe that Clause 4 is in some way defective; that we do not like it. I do not need to spend much time on the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Do I think the amendment is necessary? I think yes. Is it apt? I think yes. I want to spend a little time on the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Minister.
If the Committee decides that it wishes to accept the amendment, I would happily accept a negotiation between the Opposition, the Benches to my right, and, indeed, any interested party, as to how this might be translated into what I think the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Marlesford, wish, which is a strategic amendment at the beginning of the Bill saying, "This is what the Bill is about". I should be perfectly happy to accept such a negotiation but this Committee has gone beyond that. I am afraid that the Committee is faced with a choice of either accepting something that is subject to negotiation and will be brought back on Report or of saying with the Minister, "There is no need to change Clause 4 of the Bill". That is the position that I understand the Minister to take.
The Minister said that there should be no detailed guidance on the face of the Bill. I accept that; it would be absurd that there should be guidance on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, perhaps the Minister will be good
770
enough to look at my proposed schedule. I apologise for its drafting, which has been widely criticised. All I can say is that it is not my drafting—
Viscount Ullswater: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that the criticism was not of the words in the schedule but of the fact that it should appear in the schedules to the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am glad to hear the Minister say that, but I understood that there had been criticism of the drafting of the proposed schedule. Indeed, I understood a number of Members of the Committee to say, "We can't accept this; we can't accept that; we can't accept the other". That does not bother me; it is not the job of the Opposition to draft amendments, even if we accept all the Government's wording, as we have in this case.
In paragraph 8(2) (b), the proposed schedule instructs Ministers to ensure that the revised guidance:
"lists all extant guidance, indicates how and to what extent it needs to be amended, amplified or consolidated, and sets out a timetable for this process".
In my view, that allows Ministers to do exactly what the noble Viscount wanted. I am not entirely clear what the concept of sustainable development means. However, if there is a concept it is obviously not static. It is right that the Minister may say that the guidance needs to be amplified and that the timetable for doing so will cover the next 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. Therefore, flexibility is built into the proposed schedule.
The one point on which the Minister gave the game away was in saying that the guidance has to be reviewed and considered and will be ready for consideration when the Bill goes to another place. From the Opposition Benches I have covered a number of Bills during their passage through this House. I have become somewhat tired of Ministers saying, "It will all be all right when it gets to another place. Your Lordships need not worry about what is happening. We will get it right by the time it goes down to another place". We have to get it right in this House; if not in this Committee, then at least in this House at some future stage of the Bill.
I say to the Committee in all honesty, and I believe that I am speaking the absolute truth, that unless it passes these amendments, however defective they may be—and I accept that they are defective and that there will be negotiation about how the provision may be translated into what the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Marlesford and Lord Moran, want—we can wash our hands of Clause 4 and say, "There will be no improvement on Clause 4 and there will be no improvement on guidance until the Bill is in another place". That is a derogation of the duty of Members of this House. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 38) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 146.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Annan, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Judd, L.

Avebury, L.

Kennet, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Chorley, L.

Morris of castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

[Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nathan, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Palmer, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Foot, L.

Shannon, E.

Gallacher, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Geraint, L.

Stalland, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

[Teller.]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Halsbury, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hamwee, B.

Tope, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Howell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cadman, L.

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnock, L.

Astor, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Balfour, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Chesham, L.

Barber, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Clinton, L.

Birdwood, L.

Coleraine, L.

Blaker, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Blyth, L.

Craigavon, V.

Boardman, L.

Cranborne, V. [L. Privy Seal]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Bridgman, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Davidson, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Denham, L.

Burnham, L.

Derwent, L.

Butterworth, L.

Digby, L.

772

Dixon-Smith, L.

Milverton, L.

Downshire, M.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Effingham, E.

Moran, L.

Elibank, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northesk, E.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Geddes, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goschen, V.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Greenway, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Polwarth, L.

Harlech, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harrowby, E.

Rawlings, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Rennell, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Renwick, L.

Howe, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rodney, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller]

Saint Oswald, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Salisbury, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Savile, L.

Kenyon, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kingsland, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Knollys, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Leigh, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Lindsay, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Strange, B.

Long, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lytton, E.

Swansea, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Teviot, L.

[L. Chancellor]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Manchester, D.

Thurlow, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgame, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Ullswater, V.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Young, B.

Mills, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert:
("() The guidance under subsection (1) above must include guidance on the extent to which, when considering whether or not to, or the manner in which it will, exercise any power, it is unreasonable for the Agency to take into account costs and benefits under section 37(1) below.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment still leaves us in the realms of the disputed Clause 4 and the guidance on Sustainable development: aims and objectives. Clause 29 falls into the category of other aims and objectives. It really has its meaning in Clause 37 which requires the new agency to take into account the costs which may be incurred and the benefits likely to accrue in consequence of the exercise of its powers.

773
Before any Member of the Committee suggests it, I concede that this may not be the right place for the amendment. However, as I went through the Bill, it seemed to me that there was no other suitable place for it. It would be too late to try to amend Clause 35 because we are talking about the aims and objectives.
The duty to take into account the costs and benefits likely to accrue from the exercise of the agency's powers is not totally overriding; for example, it does not apply where the new agency has specific duties or a statutory obligation to discharge or where it would be unreasonable in the circumstances so to do.
Statutory responsibilities and duties and requirements imposed by directions are easily identifiable. But in many circumstances, determining whether or not it is unreasonable to consider costs and benefits may prove difficult and may very well lead to controversy. There is already sufficient controversy surrounding Clause 37 and this amendment is, in very large measure, an attempt to remove such controversy.
Of course it is right that cost considerations do not take precedence over primary environmental duties. But to allow the agency complete discretion in deciding when circumstances make it unreasonable for it to take into account costs and benefits is, I suggest to the Committee, an invitation to trouble.
The trouble that I foresee is that it may lead to the possibility of challenges against the agency's decisions; that is, appeals or perhaps applications for judicial review. Whether or not the challenge, in whatever form it is made, is upheld, it would certainly be damaging, costly, time-consuming and counter-productive. Therefore, it seems to me that clear guidance is needed which will prevent the agency from being diverted from its real job. I believe that that is the effect which my Amendment No. 39 will bring about.
I am somewhat heartened by the fact that I notice in the general briefing which the NFU has issued, and which a number of Members of the Committee may have received, that the NFU supports the amendment, which I now beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing this amendment. It is particularly appropriate since the Committee has just decided to allow ministerial guidance to be apparently free from any control by Parliament.
I should have to say that we should like to go rather further than the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as I am sure he will understand. Later in the Bill, we shall oppose the Motion that Clause 37 stand part in its entirety. In so far as the noble Lord's amendment is in mitigation of what we regard as being the unpleasant effects of Clause 37, we support it. However, if Members of the Committee decide to include Clause 37 in the Bill as it stands, I would very much prefer the noble Lord to move his amendment on Report rather than in Committee. If the Committee decides that Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill—which we will oppose—we shall do what we can to mitigate the effects on Report. I believe that the noble
774
Lord's amendment is designed to mitigate such effects. Therefore, to that extent, I support it. However, there is a major issue which rides above the amendment.
Lord Renton: I regret to say that I cannot support my noble friend's amendment, not only because it contains a rather long split infinitive, with the insertion of no fewer than seven words, but also because it assumes that Clause 4 as it stands will remain part of the Bill. As I have already mentioned, I hope that Clause 4 will not do so.
Lord Howie of Troon: I doubt that the split infinitive will kill the issue because I imagine that the split infinitive can be unsplit either on Report or later. I hesitate to dissent from my noble friend on the Front Bench who I promised on Second Reading to support as much as I could, but surely if we pass the amendment now it would be every bit as good as passing it on Report. However, I may be mistaken in that respect. I shall leave the issue on one side.
It strikes me that Clause 37 is a very curious provision. It is one which, I must confess, I find a little difficult to understand—whether or not its infinitives are split or unsplit. I believe that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is an improvement on a very difficult clause. However, I am willing to be advised further by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
Baroness Hamwee: I, too, find this to be a most difficult amendment. Like other noble Lords, I have a distaste for Clause 37. However, if Parliament decides that Clause 37 should remain in the Bill, then, for precisely the reasons that we discussed earlier, it seems to me that it should not be for Ministers to give guidance saying that it should be disregarded.
Viscount Ullswater: The amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas would require the guidance issued under Clause 4 to the agency to include advice on when it would be unreasonable to take account of costs and benefits, as required by Clause 37.
I am happy to be able to give my noble friend the assurance he is seeking that the agency will be given guidance on that subject. As I hope he has by now had the opportunity to see, the draft scoping guidance document that we discussed on Tuesday shows that it is indeed our intention to offer such guidance. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am much obliged. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister so early in his response, but can he tell the Committee whether the guidance will be permanent? In other words, the noble Viscount said that there would be guidance, but, as I understand Clause 4, Ministers may change their mind from time to time; for example, every 30 seconds. Is the Minister now saying that the guidance he mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be permanent?
Viscount Ullswater: I am saying that it will be continuous. That may not be quite what the noble Lord is saying, but that is the word that I believe I should use.
As I was about to say as regards the guidance, paragraphs 1.7 and the second indent of paragraph 1.8 note that the detailed guidance document will include

775
advice on how the agency is to have regard to likely costs and benefits, including social and environmental ones as well economic ones.
However, as I made clear on the first day of Committee, the Government believe that it would be dangerous to seek to overspecify on the face of the Bill the full contents of the guidance. I believe that my noble friend will agree that this may not, perhaps, be the right place for such a provision. Nevertheless, I am not criticising my noble friend for tabling the amendment on that account. I said that I believe a long list might appear to be exhaustive but not cover all the issues on which in future years we might need to give the agency guidance. In any case, it is unnecessary in practice to require Ministers to give guidance on costs and benefits. Section 1.8 of the draft document that I issued, showing the scope of the guidance, shows that the Government already intend to include advice on costs and benefits and the relationship to Clause 37. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation and, indeed, for the assurance that he has given. However, when my noble friend says that the scope of the guidance will be "continuous", that rather suggests to me something of a moving feast, parts of which are to be enjoyed and other parts of which are not to be so enjoyed. It is somewhat difficult to see quite how that will pan out.
I feel that my noble friend Lord Renton was a little unkind to me. Guilty I have been of many errors in this Chamber and in our Committees over some years, but that has never stopped noble Lords from understanding the purport of my remarks. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Renton, misunderstood that—
Lord Renton: No I did not.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I can only deal with matters as they appear at this moment. On giving some consideration to the Marshalled List, I noticed that several noble Lords had given notice of their intention to oppose Clause 37. However, we are a long way from that stage. I have to deal with matters as they stand at present.
However, I do not wish to delay Members of the Committee any further because, judging by the last Division, there is little likelihood of my being able to carry a Division on the amendment at this time. I should like to see how the Bill unfolds during the next five days or so. I may then wish to seek further clarification and, perhaps, put something along those lines on the face of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39A to 41 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I certainly do not wish to oppose the proposition that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. However, all I rise to do is to invite my noble friend the Minister to consider the discussions that have taken place so far this afternoon and to bear in mind the doubts expressed on all sides of the Committee about Clause 4 as it stands. It seems to me to be contrary to the good principles of legislation under which Parliament should express its intention clearly and Ministers should be guided by that intention.
To have a very wide power of giving guidance by letter or by some other means behind the back of Parliament and without Parliament being given the opportunity to say whether or not it is acceptable, seems to me to be going too far. For that reason, I implore my noble friend the Minister to say that, between now and Report stage, he will give further thought to Clause 4.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is perfectly true that serious reservations have been expressed about Clause 4 on all sides of the Committee. I tried to explain to the Committee that I thought the only way to get the Government to change their mind on Clause 4 was—if I may put it like this—by the power of the gun. But the power of the gun, I am afraid, went against me. There were various noble Lords who, I thought, might support an amendment which would in a sense compel the Government to reconsider Clause 4. However, that amendment was defeated. But, if the imploring of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, can change the Government's mind then I, for one, would be very happy. I hope that he will pay attention at least to his noble friend, if not to the Opposition.
Lord Crickhowell: I have just two points to make on the clause. They are points I have made both on Second Reading and, I think, in earlier Committee stage debates. At Second Reading I said that we were creating a partnership, a marriage, between the department and the agency and that I feared the department was insisting on the introduction of the word "obey". I suppose in a way this is the first of the marriage clauses. As I quite welcome the marriage, all I want to ensure is that the terms of the contract are correct.
It seems to me that there are two requirements for a sensible contract. One is that the guidance should always be published; the second is that before it is given the department should always consult with the agency. I was wrong, I think on two occasions, when I said that nowhere in the Bill is there any provision that the Government should consult the agency. That is not right. Under Clause 38, the clause concerning ministerial directions to the new agency, there is indeed a requirement that before giving a direction the Minister consults. There is also a requirement that the direction is published. All I am asking is that similar provisions should be written into this clause, so ensuring that the

777
guidance is always published and that before it is finalised there is consultation, including consultation with the agency, and indeed with both agencies because we are dealing as well with the Scottish agency.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My noble friend Lady Hamwee and myself would not like it to be understood that just because we have not given vent to the notice which is on the Marshalled List of our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill, we therefore consider Clause 4 a good thing. We believe, however, that this is probably not the moment to challenge it and that the Government should be given time to think in the light of all the various criticisms that have been made in different parts of the Chamber.
Viscount Ullswater: I say initially to my noble friend Lord Renton that I guarantee that I shall consider very carefully all the representations made to the Government during the course of this Bill whether at this stage or any future stage. I have listened carefully to the arguments. I have indicated to my noble friend that I think Clause 4 goes beyond the normal arrangements for non-departmental public bodies in which the aims and objectives are usually set as part of the management's statement because it places a duty on Ministers to provide the guidance.
On the first day the noble Lord, Lord Williams, challenged me as to whether the Government would consider a strategic amendment when we were considering the first amendment. He challenged me as to whether my mind was closed against what he referred to as a strategic amendment. I believe he was quoting from my noble friend Lord Marlesford. At that stage I said that my mind was not closed but I was not prepared to give him any commitment that I would return at Report stage with an amendment. I said that I would certainly want to consider everything I had heard. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that the guidance will of course be published. I believe it would probably even be available under the environmental information regulations. I note also that he agrees that the agency will be involved in those consultations. I believe that Clause 4 has a part to play in this legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we leave Clause 4, the noble Viscount delivered himself of some rather delphic words about a strategic amendment. He said his mind was perhaps not altogether closed. Then he moved on to another subject. Can he clarify for the Committee exactly what he intends before we come to Report stage? Is his mind still open? Can we produce or negotiate something which is acceptable to all sides of the Chamber, or is he simply saying that all is said and done on the matter?
Viscount Ullswater: I indicated on Tuesday that I heard what the Chamber had to say. The noble Lord challenged me to say whether I was against having any form of strategic amendment. I said at that stage that my mind was not closed and that I would consider whether
778
some form of strategic amendment would be possible between now and the next stage. But I did not commit myself to bringing forward such an amendment.
Lord Moran: I did not quite understand what the Minister said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about consultation. He talked about the environment agency being involved in the consultations. What I mentioned when I spoke earlier was that there should at any rate be full consultation with the environment agency and with all other appropriate bodies before the guidance is issued and that there should then be an opportunity for Parliament to consider it. Will the Minister be able to look at those two points before the next stage of the Bill?
Viscount Ullswater: At the moment the agency is not in existence. I think what I said on a previous occasion was that it would consult with the advisory committee which is in existence. As I have indicated, the guidance is draft guidance and those consultations would take place with a much wider selection of interested people. We would especially listen to the views of your Lordships and Members of another place.
Lord Crickhowell: I am sorry to pursue the matter but I think all that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and I are asking for is something quite simple. I do not see the difficulty here. I am grateful for the undertaking that the agency, or the advisory committee rather, would be included in the consultation process before the initial guidance was issued. I think I interpreted the somewhat delphic words of my noble friend in response to a question from the Front Bench opposite that from time to time it might be possible for the guidance to be altered in the future. All I would like to see is what appears in Clause 38, which is concerned with directions; namely, a statement in the Bill that the agencies will be consulted and that the guidance will be published. If it is to happen anyway and if it can be included under Clause 38, I cannot think why it cannot be included under a redrafted Clause 4. It would make the matter unquestionably clearer and would perhaps avoid misunderstanding and difficulty on a later occasion.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall certainly look carefully at the words of my noble friend and see what can be done.
Clause 4 agreed to.
5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 5 [General functions with respect to pollution control]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("exercisable") and insert ("exercised").
The noble Baroness said: When I first read the Bill my eyes passed, without lingering long, to the first line of Clause 5 and the word "exercisable". The phrase reads:
"The Agency's pollution control powers shall be exercisable".
Then the purposes are set out. Having found a different term in Clause 6, I returned to that term and wondered what the nuances of "exercisable" might be and why the

779
Government had chosen—if they did so consciously—not to use the term "exercised". In other words, is the agency not to have a duty to prevent, minimise, remedy or mitigate,
"the effects of, pollution of the environment".
I am confirmed in my concern because it has been drawn to my attention that in the rubric to Clause 5(1) a previous draft referred to "duties", but it now refers to "general functions" with respect to pollution control. I therefore put down the amendment with a view to seeking the Government's explanation as to the level of energy to be put into the function by the agency and whether it is to have a duty or merely a discretion. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Baroness introduced her amendment in a rather modest manner because it goes to the heart of what some of us were discussing on Second Reading. It concerns whether the agency has a duty in pollution control rather than a power in pollution control. If the words, "shall be exercised" are substituted for the words "shall be exercisable", it seems to me that there shall be a clear duty on the agency to use what powers it has,
"for the purpose of preventing or minimising, or remedying or mitigating the effects of, pollution of the environment".
That is the duty for which we have been asking and for which we will continue to ask. I very much hope that, in responding to the amendment, the noble Viscount will explain in as full language as he feels appropriate why there should be no duty on the agency to prevent, minimise, remedy or mitigate the effects of pollution, when there are duties imposed on the agency in other matters.
I hate to go over old ground, but I wish again to quote the terms of Amendment No. 147 which I regret that the Committee failed to favour. It states—and this is government guidance—
"The overall aim of the Agency shall be to help to promote sustainable development through high quality, integrated environmental protection, management and enhancement".
The amendment continues:
"The main objectives of the Agency shall be",
to reduce pollution. Either the agency has a duty which is enforceable in law, or it has a power which is exercisable at the discretion of the agency. The two matters are wholly separate and wholly different in their effect.
As I said on Second Reading, I strongly support any amendment which imposes a duty on the agency as opposed to simply giving it a power to do something and it can use its power if and when it wishes. I strongly support the amendment rather modestly moved by the noble Baroness.
Lord Howie of Troon: I support the amendment on the following grounds. The first line of Clause 5(1) mentions the agency's pollution control powers. They are to be either exercisable or, if the amendment is successful, exercised. We then turn to subsection (2) in which, as I understand it, the agency is supposed to carry out its pollution control functions.
780
I am in some difficulty over understanding how the agency can carry out its pollution control functions under subsection (2) without exercising its pollution control powers under the first line of Clause 5. I support the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may first deal with the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I am advised that the word "functions"—the word in the margin—covers both "powers" as well as "duties". Therefore the two are subsumed into the word "functions".
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry, but I must intervene at this point. The rubric is not part of the Bill and will not be part of the Act.
Viscount Ullswater: I thought that what the noble Lord was concerned about was the change of the word from "duties" to "functions", a change from the previous draft. If I heard him right, I thought he said that a previous draft had used the word "duties".
Lord Williams of Elvel: I must have spent a lot of time explaining myself extremely badly. To repeat what I said at Second Reading, I thought and we think that the agency should have a duty to exercise its powers,
"for the purpose of preventing or minimising … the effects of, pollution of the environment".
The Bill as drafted states that,
"The Agency's pollution control powers shall be exercisable".
In other words, it is a possibility that it may exercise those powers. The noble Baroness's amendment substitutes the word "exercised" for "exercisable" and clearly makes it a duty on the agency rather than simply an option. I am sorry if I was inexplicit or unclear in what I said previously, but that is what I was trying to say.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 5 sets out the purposes for which the agency may exercise its pollution control powers. Amendment No. 43 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to change that so that the agency's powers shall be exercised for the purposes of dealing with pollution control. This would suggest that all its powers must be exercised in every case; but some of the pollution control powers are, of course, discretionary, and necessarily so, such as the power to prosecute. The amendment would mean, for example, that the agency would have to use its power to prosecute at every opportunity, which would be both unworkable and counter-productive. The wording as it stands is designed to ensure that the purposes attach when and where the powers are exercised.
If the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that the agency uses its pollution control powers, it is misguided and unnecessary. Pollution control is one of the agency's core functions and it will, of course, act to control pollution wherever appropriate.
I shall have to study carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Howie, put before the Committee. I did not find any difficulty with Clause 5(2) in its relation to Clause

781
5(1). However, if I find something, I shall certainly write to him. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I should explain to the Committee why the manner in which I moved the amendment was, as the noble Lord put it, modest. The reason was that after putting the amendment down, I realised that there might be a place for the term "exercisable", although I still felt that this was not the place for it. It would be a great deal more helpful and would express the aims and objectives of Members of the Committee if the Bill were to spell out more clearly than it does that the agency shall have a duty to do the things which are referred to in Clause 5(1). Although it has pollution control duties—and we shall return to this matter later, particularly in the context of air pollution —as I read the clause, it does not have an overall duty to prevent, minimise, remedy or mitigate the effects of pollution. It would be a great deal clearer—we shall perhaps have to return to the matter on Report—if Clause 5(1) stated that duty, and the next clause said that its powers shall be exercisable for those purposes which have already been given the status of a duty. The debate has been useful and, having made those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 5, line 43, after ("exercisable") insert (", without prejudice to section 4 above").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment falls into a discussion that we had on Tuesday and should have been addressed at that stage. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 60 and 67—again they relate to a semantic discussion about this particular clause and address the meaning of "mitigating". This is by way of a probing amendment: I hope that the Minister will explain to the Committee the exact meaning of the term "mitigating". As I understand it, the term can be used in many different ways, and very often involves some form of financial compensation. I wondered whether it was the intention here that if pollution has occurred somebody will be compensated for it. Or does "mitigating" merely mean the same as "minimising", which also appears in the clause? If compensation is available, on what basis would it be paid?
I also support Amendment No. 60 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. As I understand it, it seeks to make clear that the pollution would not just be serious pollution but would also include what might be defined as "light" pollution and it would therefore be the duty of the environment agency to deal also with that. The main thrust of this group of amendments is to ask the Minister to elucidate the meaning of "mitigating", to explain how it varies from "minimising", and whether it implies some kind of financial compensation. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: The grouping at this point is slightly awkward. My Amendment No. 46, which relates to light pollution, is not directly connected with
782
the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. However, as it is grouped here, perhaps I might be allowed to make now the points that I wanted to make. My amendment suggests that the words "including light pollution" should be added to Clause 5(1) of the Bill.
The concept of light pollution may not be wholly familiar to all Members of the Committee. But many forms of pollution are relatively new. Not so long ago we did not know about ozone pollution. There are many countries where pollution itself is only beginning to be recognised—for example, in the former Soviet Union, which is only now coming to recognise terrible forms of pollution. I do not believe that Members of the Committee will have any difficulty at all in recognising inappropriate light as a very real source of pollution.
Among the beauties of the world are dark skies and moon-lit and star-lit skies at night. Those of us who live deep in the countryside find the intrusion of light to be very polluting indeed to the areas in which we live. In a sense, it almost reduces areas of countryside to a form of suburbanisation, which is much to be regretted. I believe that, to some extent at least, it can be avoided.
Recently, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which, as noble Lords may know, I am the chairman, and the British Astronomical Society joined together to draw attention to and warn about the huge increase in lighting that has taken place in this country. If Members of the Committee will look, as I have done, at a satellite map of Britain at night on a particular night, and at a map for the same night 20 years earlier, the result is striking and distressing.
Lighting is used without due care and thought. I hope that the new agency will be able to give considerable attention to this matter. There are several examples that could be given, one of which is humble street lighting, which is often unnecessarily intense, particularly in villages. For example, in the small Suffolk village of Stratford St Mary the local authority proposed to put up 40 extremely bright street lights. The village is in Dedham Vale, an area of outstanding natural beauty. As a result of the intervention of the Dedham Vale Society, it was negotiated that it could have a perfectly adequate supply of light from 20 lights which were themselves of more pleasing design.
Secondly, although one fully recognises the need for security lighting, often it is unnecessarily bright and unnecessarily intense. Indeed, it can be counter-productive, by causing shadows which can in themselves be a threat.
Perhaps one of the most obvious areas where lighting is excessive and undesirable is on roads. One of course needs lighting on some roads; but equally, the lighting is often quite unnecessary, particularly in the countryside.
There was a time when road engineers felt that it was the spice of life to build roads where people did not want them. It was almost more fun to be doing so. In recent years public opinion has shifted so much that now great care is taken by the Department of Transport in the environmental design of roads. (That is not to say that all the roads are necessary.) I am afraid that that stage has not yet been reached as regards lighting. Authorities will gaily say that they must have very bright lights and often do not even consult. If Ministers

783
are presumptuous enough to question their decisions, perhaps as a result of constituency pressures, they will often tell those Ministers that they will be risking the most terrible accidents and will have human death on their hands. Quite often that is simply not true. The effect of lights can be mitigated by their being downward rather than upward reflecting. Indeed there can be dangers from moving from a very brightly lit area to a dark area. Again, I believe that there is much scope for better lighting.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who has unfortunately had to leave, had hoped to make the point that in many cases bright light, by attracting insects, can cause the death of protected species such as bats and nightjars, which are then struck by traffic as they pursue them. That is another disadvantage. All I am saying is that the impact of unnecessary lighting in this country has now become a real problem. It is one to which we need to turn our attention.
I do not know whether my noble friend would wish to include the words in the Bill, or whether he would be able to assure me that appropriate guidance would be given to the new agency to take account of the need for lighting; I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
Lord Northbourne: I should like, very briefly, to support the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in drawing attention to the importance of this new environmental damage that is being caused by light at night. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, got it wrong in referring to light pollution: what we are discussing is pollution by light at night. The orange glow over my part of the countryside at night certainly detracts materially from the beauty of the countryside at night. If we are concerned about maintaining the rural countryside in this country, we must be concerned about retaining it by night as well as by day.
It is all very well to have motorway lighting. At the moment I am in correspondence about the new lighting that is being installed on the M.2. I am told that it is justified if a 30 per cent. reduction in night accident rates is achieved. I hope to find out, first, whether or not there is any research justification for the figure of 30 per cent. and, secondly, whether or not there are alternative solutions. For example, in France there are central barriers so that the lights of oncoming vehicles do not dazzle drivers. That may be a better and very much cheaper solution. I suggest that whatever is put into the Bill, there ought to be an environmental assessment every time a new major street lighting scheme on a motorway is proposed and that all the relevant amenity bodies, including the CPRE, are consulted.
Lord Moran: I, too, support very strongly Amendment No. 46 so capably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. At the moment, in this country lighting is largely a matter for local authorities. Many of them have enlightened policies. The authorities in the two areas where I live, Powys and Kensington, have admirable lighting engineers and do a very good job. I believe it would be helpful if the environmental agency was able to use its influence to cut down pollution by
784
light and to encourage such things as downward-directed lights, less wasteful light and to cut out unnecessary lighting.
For the past five years the British Astronomical Association has conducted an admirable campaign called the Campaign for Dark Skies. It is important that in country areas one should still be able to see the stars and not have them blotted out by the terrible orange glow that covers so much of the country. It is possible to improve matters. The Department of Transport has done a good job in removing quite a number of low-pressure sodium lights, which distort colours and make everything appear orange, and replacing them—as in the case of the M.4 going west—with high-pressure sodium lights which are still an orangey-yellow colour but do not distort colours. I believe they are greatly preferable. White lights are even better. I am happy to say that in my part of Wales the county council has agreed to replace the orange sodium lights in the village with white lights. The improvement is immense. However, here in London it seems that only round Buckingham Palace, Albert Bridge, and select places of that kind, is one allowed to have white lights.
Perhaps one good idea for the millennium project is to sweep away all the sodium lights in this country and replace them with white lights. This amendment is a good one, and I hope that the Government will be prepared to meet the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: I should like to add the briefest of comment in support of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I should like to make three points, one of them a rather discrete one. I have no doubt that this is a neglected area that deserves a great deal more sympathy and attention than it has had up to now. Moreover, I believe that public opinion is moving well ahead of the authorities over the whole field of pollution by light.
In my part of the Cotswolds, all of the villages are rapidly filling up with commuters. I believe that almost all of them are townspeople who have come to live in the villages. I am fascinated by the ferocity with which year by year people who come to live in the villages oppose street lighting—and jolly good luck to them! The fact of the matter is that they have opted to live and think like country people. I am all in favour of giving them the maximum amount of encouragement. However, with equal ferocity, the local authorities wish to impose street lighting without any proper review of the situation.
I am jolly glad that there are many villages in the Cotswolds without any lighting. One particular village of 800 people was the subject of a poll on the subject. Ninety three per cent. refused to have anything to do with street lighting, if it could be avoided. It is nothing to do with safety. The rigidity of the local authorities is absolutely frightening. I believe that the adoption of this amendment will help and—if I may coin the phrase—lighten the darkness of these authorities who cannot see what it is all about.
Baroness David: I also support this amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit of it, even

785
if the wording "light pollution" may not be perfect. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has mentioned the danger of driving from very bright lights into darkness, which is what happens on motorways. I believe that the very bright lights are extended for too great a distance. If they can be toned down it will at any rate save some energy and also make driving very much safer.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I also support the amendment. As the noble Baroness has just said, the wording of the amendment probably needs to be revised. Although it is not the purpose of the environment agency, this will have the effect, if it happens, of reducing the amount of energy that is expended. If we are moving towards sustainable development, that is something of which we must all be in favour.
Lord Howie of Troon: I do not wish to oppose the amendment totally because I believe that there is a good deal of sense in it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has perhaps a fixation about light. Just the other day he was trying to change our time in the expectation of greater light. What I see here is a good deal of sense that has been carried just a little too far, which is often the case in environmental matters. If people dislike something of this nature they call it pollution. The kind of thing that we have been talking about is no more than nuisance. It may amount to pollution here and there in odd corners, but it is really nuisance and therefore is much less reprehensible.
When I stumble into the countryside (which does not happen very often) I prefer to see where I am going. If one is looking at stars, and so on, the light is a nuisance. However, for the most part I like the help of lights, perhaps because I do not see very well any way. I can see better in the light than in the dark. I would not describe light as pollution. It may be a nuisance and may interfere with certain activities. I support certain parts of the speeches that have been made, but, to be frank, the pudding has been over-egged.
Lord Chorley: I started off with the difficulty of wondering what light pollution meant. I thought that it was the opposite of heavy pollution; but we were enlightened on that. I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. My only worry is whether the environment agency is the right body to do it. However, I cannot think who else it may be and in that sense I support the noble Lord. If we make some progress on this matter perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, might wish to come back at Report stage so that we can discuss the other appalling form of transport pollution—namely, noise—which I believe is as bad as if not worse than pollution by light.
Viscount Ullswater: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, will forgive me if I address myself to the particular amendment that seems to have monopolised the attention of the Committee in the past few minutes before I address myself to her point on "mitigating". Amendment No. 46 specifies that light pollution should be included within environmental pollution. I recognise not only the quite legitimate anxieties behind this proposal, which have been echoed from a number of corners in this House, but that Clause 5 is a general
786
provision setting out the purposes for which all the agency pollution control functions are exercisable, and it would not be appropriate to specify the kind of pollution here.
I am well aware of people's worries about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, identified his dislike for low pressure sodium lights. But motorway and street lighting is needed both for safety and amenity purposes. My noble friend indicated how it was possible to have well designed installations which should provide illumination only when and where it was required and to an appropriate level of intensity. I agree that that is the right course. However, the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Chorley, identified some of the problems attaching this amendment to the Bill. It is important to recognise that the environment agency's responsibilities do not extend to statutory nuisance or transport matters. So its role in this instance would be very limited.
Although I listened very carefully to noble Lords and have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said, I hope that my noble friend will not seek to press his amendment on this occasion.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I thank my noble friend for his reply. As I understood him, in so far as it would be under the terms of the clause as drafted, it would be up to the environment agency to take account of pollution by light along with other forms of pollution. If that is what my noble friend said, and I understood him to say that, that is quite satisfactory.
I quite understand that there is no reason to single out with a specific reference in the clause a specific form of pollution. But I was rather concerned when he said that it would not be able to take any account of noise or other forms of pollution. I should have thought that all forms of pollution should be taken into account because they are part of what stands in the way of sustainable development, if I may use the current phrase.
Given that Hansard can now be used to understand legislation, and on the understanding that light pollution is indeed comprehended in the terms of Clause 4, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I should say that Clause 5 is concerned with the agency's pollution control functions. I sought to indicate to my noble friend that the agency's responsibilities do not extend to those forms of statutory nuisance.
I turn to Amendment No. 45. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, considers that Amendment No. 44 has been dealt with on a previous occasion. The purposes set out in Clause 5 for which the agency may exercise its pollution control functions are for preventing, minimising, remedying or mitigating the effects of pollution of the environment. Amendment No. 45 proposes that "mitigating" should be omitted from that list. It is clear that the best way of dealing with pollution is to prevent or minimise it and render it harmless, wherever cost-effective options exist for that purpose. Where pollution has already occurred, it may be necessary to try to remedy it. However, it will not be

787
possible or reasonable to effect a full clean-up of the effects of some past environmental contamination or of a particularly serious environmental incident in every case. In those cases it is necessary to do the best that one can in the circumstances. Therefore, I feel that the list of purposes must include "mitigating".
That is particularly the case when considering the matter of contaminated land. The proposed regime for dealing with past contamination focuses clearly on what truly matters: dealing with the harm that may be arising or the further pollution to controlled waters. A requirement to do more than that would produce both excessive and perhaps unnecessary financial burdens and in many cases be technically impossible.
If "mitigating" is retained—as I believe it must be—in the list of agency purposes for which pollution control functions are exercisable, it follows that it should also be retained in the other places in Clause 5 in which it occurs, contrary to Amendments Nos. 60 and 67.
The noble Baroness said that her amendment was in the form of a probing amendment. With that explanation, I hope that she will be able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for having misunderstood his amendment. I would have enthusiastically supported it, of course, if I had understood it in the first place. I am reassured by what the Minister said, but there will necessarily be costs to local authorities in changing the lights, and the support of the environment agency in pursuing that policy would have been extremely useful. I regret that I did not understand the amendment in the first place.
I am grateful to the Minister for his elucidation of what "mitigation" might mean. I shall read carefully in Hansard his rather technical explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 6, line 5, after ("compile") insert ("and publish").
The noble Baroness said: I am afraid that we must now consider another group of amendments which deal with more than one subject. In the limited time available earlier, we tried to sort out this group. We removed several of the amendments, which we shall deal with separately.
My understanding of this group of amendments is that it deals with two main issues in relation to this clause. Amendments Nos. 48, 55, 59, 62 and 64 concern the wider publishing of reports and giving information to the public about the pollution of the environment. Those who heard the broadcast this morning about the difficulty of extracting information from government departments—particularly, as agencies are set up, it is possible to use the excuse of commercial disadvantage if one publishes information—will share with me the desire that as much information as possible should be published and automatically made available to the public, particularly in such an important area as
788
pollution with the possible risks to health, and so on. In my view there should be complete freedom of information in this field and the Government have paid lip service to that view. The public should be entitled to know the dangers with which they are faced.
The amendments seek to place a mandatory requirement on the agency to let the public know where pollution has occurred. The published reports will not only describe the pollution that has occurred but also the agency's proposals for dealing with that pollution.
The other half of the amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56 and 57, represents an attempt to give additional discretionary powers to the agency rather than to Ministers and to provide it with some autonomy and greater independence. Amendment No. 49, and Amendment No. 50 which is consequential upon it, lays a duty on the agency to assess pollution, not merely at the whim of Ministers but through its own discretion. Similarly, Amendment No. 51 gives it discretion to decide when to carry out assessments of the extent of the pollution. Amendment No. 53 requires the agency not only to examine the effects and consequences of pollution but also to examine the causes.
Finally, Amendment No. 56, and Amendment No. 57 which is consequential upon it, requires the agency to submit reports, not in all instances but only if requested. It provides the agency with greater discretion as to whether reports are necessary. The agency is not required to submit reports in all instances. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: One amendment in this group is curiously out of place. It is an amendment in my name and, though it is a technical amendment, it is important. I wish to speak first about the amendments to which the noble Baroness spoke. As I said at Second Reading, I was puzzled as to why the agency should carry out assessments only if required to do so and I expressed the hope that the information would and should be published.
I suppose the answer that the Minister will give me is that the agency can carry out such works without any request from the Minister and, no doubt, will do so, but if, that for some reason, the Minister wanted it, he must have the power to request it. The situation one envisages then is that the department will ring up the agency and say, "We would like you to do this assessment". A chairman even more difficult and bloody-minded than the present chairman of the NRA—if any such thing can be conceived—may turn round and say, "We have no intention of doing anything of the kind". I suppose therefore that one can envisage a situation where the wording may be required.
However, I find it odd and implausible, to say the least, that the agency will not do that kind of assessment as part of its work on its own initiative. Having done it, I am sure that it should be published. To prepare and send such a report to Ministers without publishing it would be extremely peculiar. It would immediately appear in that excellent journal ENDS, which takes every document which circulates around the DoE and informs the rest of the department and anyone else who

789
cares to read it what is going on. So it would be better if there was a requirement to publish at the word go and then we would not need to rely so much on that excellent journal. I hope therefore that there will be a requirement to publish and thus avoid that nonsense.
Amendment No. 68 raises an important technical point. Clause 5 of the Bill sets out the agency's general functions with respect to pollution control and requires the pollution control powers of the agency to be exercised for the purpose of,
"preventing or minimising, or remedying or mitigating the effects of, pollution of the environment".
Pollution control powers and functions are conferred upon the agency by virtue of this Bill—for example, in connection with contaminated land—and the definitions of pollution control powers and functions omit a reference to the environment Act itself. They refer to previous legislation. Clearly that matter ought to be dealt with. It is a technical error. I hope that we find an appropriate way of dealing with it. A similar point occurs later under Clause 90 which confers harmonised powers of entry on the agency's pollution control functions. However, we can look at that when we come to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept amendments which merely ensure that the agency can do its job that arises from the new powers conferred on it by the Bill.
Lord Moran: A number of amendments stand in my name; namely, Amendments Nos. 49, 52, 54, 55, 57 and 62. I wish therefore to say a brief word about their purpose.
The amendments reflect my belief in open government. Their purpose is twofold: first, it is to ensure that as many as possible of the agency's reports and assessments of the state of pollution in the environment are made public; secondly, to ensure that a proper assessment of the state of pollution of the environment becomes a duty on the agency and not simply a matter of ministerial choice.
In relation to the first point, we all know of cases where unpopular or embarrassing research reports have never seen the light of day. It is surely far better for the Government to publish all the agency's assessments of pollution so that the public can participate in the business of setting priorities. The agency ought to be—I hope it will be—one of the best informed environmental bodies in the country. It would be quite wrong, therefore, for any of its reports to remain under wraps.
In relation to the second point, surely an objective means of assessing environmental protection would be a great advantage in informing debate and be a basis for subsequent government action. I hope we shall not be told that the agency cannot decide for itself what is reasonably necessary or that Ministers alone can dictate what it tells us.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I rise, first, to give general support, as would be expected from these Benches, to a series of amendments asking for greater transparency and greater publication. Secondly, I want to comment briefly on the three amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
790
Amendment No. 53, which concerns reporting on the causes of pollution—not just on pollution, but imposing a duty to identify the causes—speaks for itself. The other two amendments are Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. Amendment No. 63 asks for consultation in the course of that process. We certainly support all the amendments.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Nathan: I restrict myself to Amendments Nos. 49, 51 and 58. I regarded them as drafting amendments rather than anything else, but in the light of the discussion they have perhaps more importance than I originally thought.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 taken together is merely to enable the agency, on the face of the Bill, to produce its own report at its discretion; it can decide that it will do so. That brings it completely into line with the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution whereby the commission can, and usually does, select the subject upon which it will report. However, it must carry out a report if so required by the Minister. That seems to me to be entirely sensible.
I am reinforced in the view that it is important to put it on the face of the Bill that the agency has the right to issue its report and I thoroughly support the proposition that those reports should be published. I believe it should have the power to do so for two reasons. The first is the emphasis which arose in discussion on the power of guidance of government in relation to what the agency is to do, contained in Clause 4 which we have already discussed. The second point arises under Clause 35 where, under the subsection, there is a provision under which the agency shall produce a report if so required by the Minister. I do not object to that, but the implication of those things taken together could be that the agency shall not have the right to make a survey and to publish a report. That would be unacceptable.
My point in relation to Amendment No. 58 concerns the drafting. If my amendment to the clause is adopted, I think the word "appropriate" would be more suitable than the word "that". However, that is a consequential drafting amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: I rise to support anything which goes to the idea of publishing information. The more that is published the better it is for open government. In that I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
However, I have a slight difficulty over Amendment No. 53. With luck it may be assuaged. My difficulty is this. If some criminal negligence has been involved in the cause of pollution or environmental damage, one must be careful when publishing reports and so forth to ensure that an individual's rights—when he is accused of anything against the law—are protected. That is my only worry and I am sure that somebody will set my mind at rest on that point.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I can do so. I believe that there is a distinction between the cause of a problem and the instigator of it. It will be perfectly possible to deal publicly with a sequence of events

791
without necessarily running directly into difficulties as regards criminal law. I take the point which the noble Earl has made, but I am sure, as he said, that a way round can be found.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 5 contains important provisions about the agency's duty to compile information about environmental pollution. The agency is also to carry out environmental assessments, if so requested by Ministers, and report on its findings, or to report on options for dealing with environmental pollution. The group of amendments seeks to make a number of changes to these provisions.
Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggests that in compiling information about pollution, the agency should collect information about the causes of the pollution. The agency is required to compile information relating to pollution which will help it to carry out its pollution control functions and which will enable it to form an opinion on the general state of the pollution of the environment. In doing so, the causes of pollution may often be a relevant consideration, and the agency will then no doubt collect this information. However, there may be situations where this information is of historical interest only and we would not wish to fetter the agency's discretion by placing it under a duty always to have to research exhaustively the causes of pollution where this would not be particularly helpful. I believe the wording as it stands gives the agency all the powers it needs for carrying out this duty effectively.
Amendment No. 61 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, proposes that the legislation should make clear that in identifying the costs and benefits of the options available for dealing with pollution, the agency should identify environmental, economic and social costs and benefits. I agree that where appropriate these should be taken into account.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: We have not reached that amendment yet. Amendment No. 61 was originally grouped with these amendments, but it is no longer.
Viscount Ullswater: I apologise. I now turn to Amendments Nos. 49 to 52, 54 and 56 to 58 spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Moran, Lord Nathan and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. These amendments all seek to require the agency or to give it the discretion to carry out and report on environmental assessments without being required to do so by Ministers. I understand, I think, and sympathise with the purpose behind these proposals.
But, as I have already explained, the agency is already under a duty to compile certain environmental information. And under its incidental general functions in Clause 35, it has the power to do anything which in its opinion is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to the carrying out of its functions. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, drew our attention to Clause 35. In subsection (1) of that clause he will see the agency's wide powers which I have just mentioned.
792
If the agency feels it would be useful to carry out an environmental assessment, to undertake research or otherwise to obtain relevant information, it is thus able to do so without the provision of any additional powers in Clause 5. The NRA has produced a whole series of reports on water quality; for example, on water pollution incidents, discharge consents and compliance (the NRA's approach to control of discharges to water), contaminated land and the water environment, the quality of rivers and canals, and its water quality strategy. The agency, like the NRA, is of course also free to send any report to an appropriate Minister if it wishes to draw information to Ministers' attention.
The purpose of Clause 5(3) is to place the agency under a duty to provide to Ministers information about environmental pollution which they specifically request from it. That is a separate question, and is necessary because of the relationship between the agency and the department. I can understand why my noble friend Lord Crickhowell questioned whether it is necessary to put that on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 48, 55, 59, 62 and 64—I hope that I have got those right—propose that any reports produced by the agency under this clause should be made public. Again, I sympathise with this proposal, but the agency will already be free to do this and, like the NRA, will no doubt do so. The reports I mentioned earlier, for example, have all been published, as have many others. In addition, the agency will be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which give members of the public rights to a great deal of environmental information held by a variety of bodies. I Say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that in no way are we trying to affect transparency. It is there and through those regulations the information is available.
Amendment No. 63 suggests that the agency should be under a duty to consult industry and others before providing a report to Ministers. Once again I believe that there are many circumstances in which the agency will need to consult others in drawing up its report and in such cases I am confident that it will do so. But I do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to anticipate in the legislation who might need to be consulted in any particular case.
The main thrust of these amendments has been to ensure that the agency has the duty or discretion to produce reports without being required to do so by Ministers and that interested parties should have access to these reports. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lords that I sympathise with their concerns, but see no need to make the amendments that they propose to deal with them.
Finally, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept Amendment No. 68 moved by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, since it would have the effect of making all powers and functions of the agency
"under or by virtue of"
the Bill pollution control powers and functions. That is, of course, not what the noble Lord intended. I can, however, assure him that Clause 5 is not restricted to the agency's powers and functions under the legislation listed in subsection (5). It also applies to powers and functions under the Bill which the agency has "by virtue

793
of" the listed legislation. For example, the agency's research duty under Clause 35(5) of the Bill is caught by Clause 5 to the extent that it is carried out in relation to the agency's pollution control functions. I hope that I have made myself abundantly clear and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to my noble friend for that assurance. When confronted with contradictory advice by lawyers I always withdraw hastily and ask them to look at the matter again. I shall certainly ask my lawyers to look at it again. As long as they are satisfied with the answer given I shall not need to return to the matter again. However, if I am not satisfied that the point is fully met I shall want to return to it.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as regards the publication point, it seems that what my noble friend is saying is this: "Yes, everything should be published, but we are not going to make it compulsory". Therefore, under what circumstances can he foresee that something would not be published and why would somebody not want to publish? If they do not want to publish, then it almost seems that, in those circumstances, it should be published.
Viscount Ullswater: I am sure that the new agency, in operating all kinds of functions which it may undertake, needs to compile various reports which it will need to circulate within the organisation. Those reports may be commercially confidential. Therefore, I believe that the duty to publish everything that it commits to paper would be entirely wrong.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am partially comforted by the Minister's response in that he says that the practice has been to publish reports extensively. It is the growing excuse of commercial sensitivity which worries me. It seems to be used increasingly by agencies, quangos and so on, as a reason for not publishing reports. I share the feeling of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it is particularly those things that are not published that are the most sensitive and disturbing and about which we should know. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 60 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 6, line 19, after ("the") insert ("environmental, economic and social").
The noble Baroness said: We come for the first time to the problem of cost-benefit analysis. On Second Reading, I expressed some of my reservations about that because my limited experience is that while it sounds very analytical, objective, scientific and as though it deals with hard facts, it usually depends on a whole series of subjective judgments about what One puts into the formula and how one weights the various benefits and costs. Since making my Second Reading speech, I have been inundated with lobbying from the world of business, industry and those who are concerned with financial costs who insist that the provisions relating to
794
cost-benefit analysis should remain in the Bill. There is clearly a contrary point of view from environmentalists who share my concerns that those provisions will be weighted heavily in favour of industry and against cleaning up our polluted environment.
The current application of the "polluter pays" principle means that when industry causes pollution, it should pick up the cost. That clearly disturbs industry which wants to be sure that its costs are balanced against the benefits which are sometimes much harder to assess. One of the great difficulties is that the benefits of environmental clean-ups are often very long term, sometimes stretching as far ahead as the next century, while the pollution affects us now and the costs are always immediate and within the current year's balance sheet. That is clearly one of the reasons why industry is keen that cost-benefit analysis should remain a major plank of the provisions relating to the consequences of pollution.
The application of cost-benefit analysis is sometimes a prolonged and clumsy procedure. It is bound to constrain the work of the agency and to inhibit the exercise of its attempts to clean up pollution and to act as a regulator. Legal challenges by firms on the grounds that the agency has not properly taken the costs and benefits into account may tie it up in the courts for many years.
However, the cost-benefit approach offers an opportunity. It implies that the benefits will at least be considered and that they will not be dismissed out of hand because of the possible costs. It means that there will be some attempt to weigh the one against the other. The amendment suggests that the "environmental, economic and social" benefits should be considered as well as the financial costs. That would ensure that the balance was tilted slightly in the direction of the benefits when the agency exercised its powers as a controller of pollution. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not believe that there is any real need for the amendment. The fact of the matter is that any agency that considers the costs and benefits is bound, if it is an environmental agency, to seek to evaluate just those aspects that are described in the amendment. In fact, a great deal of work to evaluate environmental benefits has been, and is being, done in, for example, the NRA under the wise leadership of Professor Kerry Turner, who is one of the country's leading authorities on the subject. Such work has been carried out widely for a considerable time in relation to the cost-benefit analysis of flood defence schemes. The practice is being developed all the time. Those involved are already doing the work that is suggested. My concern is not that they will not have the power to do it or that they will not do it, but that the Bill does not necessarily provide the mechanisms and instruments that would allow them to get at the necessary information. I referred earlier to having statutory quality objectives which provide a route by which one can discover the costs and discuss them with those affected.

795
Therefore, I would argue that the existing wording is perfectly satisfactory. I believe that everything that the noble Baroness wants is already being widely done and I cannot believe that the agency will have any difficulty in doing what she wants.
Lord Elton: In order that the rest of us can follow the argument a little more closely, I wonder whether my noble friend can advise us, or get advice for us, on the precise meaning of the words "costs" and "benefits" in law as they now appear in line 19. Does "costs" mean only money or does it mean the other costs that are specified in the amendment? Does allying that word with "benefits" change its meaning? Although the Bill may already say what the noble Baroness would like it to say, that may not be apparent to us because we do not know the effects of those words in law.
Viscount Ullswater: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for giving us the benefit of his opinion and of his experience over a number of years as chairman of an organisation which has to weigh up such costs and benefits.
In Clause 5(3) (b) we are talking about the agency preparing a report on options for,
"preventing or minimising, or remedying or mitigating the effects of, pollution of the environment",
and specifying that that should include,
"the costs and benefits of such options".
Amendment No.61 proposes that the costs and benefits to be covered should be the "environmental, economic and social" costs and benefits. I agree that, where appropriate, they should be included, but I believe that the Bill is drafted widely so as to include them. I shall, however, take advice on whether the legal interpretation of the words "costs" and "benefits" includes the environmental, economic and social costs and benefits. I believe that it does.
Using the phrase "environmental, economic and social costs and benefits" will not mean that we include all costs and benefits. Therefore, to a certain extent the amendment would be restrictive. I do not believe that that is what the noble Baroness intends. Perhaps she will be prepared to withdraw the amendment when I say that when drawing up such reports, we certainly want the agency to include all costs and benefits.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am partly comforted by what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. I agree that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has not been sufficiently elucidated. It is not clear whether "costs" includes environmental costs and whether such costs can be placed on that side of the balance or whether "costs" merely means financial costs. That is a very important point because we should be thinking about the costs to the environment as well as the benefits of cleaning up the environment when considering possible future courses of action.
We are all in favour of efficiency and of doing things as cheaply as possible, but that does not mean that something should not be done simply because it is very expensive. I hope that at a later stage, when we shall return to the subject of cost-benefit analysis, the
796
Minister will be able to give us a clearer indication of how "costs" and "benefits" may be defined. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 64 not moved.]
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 6, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("() The Agency shall promote the development and use of technology and techniques for preventing or minimising, or remedying the effects of, pollution of the environment.").
The noble Baroness said: I propose to talk to Amendments No. 65 and 66, but largely as a conceptual matter rather than as a precise drafting matter.
The amendments seek to encourage the agency not just to be fully up-to-date with what is intended and what is happening in the technical world, but to promote the development of new methods of technology for cleaning up pollution, and for preventing, minimising or remedying the effects of pollution.
Amendment No. 65 would ensure that the agency was able to encourage research and development. There are, for example, some interesting new ways of cleaning up polluted soil by the use of fungi, and so on. There are interesting developments. It is not just a question of using more solar energy or windpower to reduce energy use; there are other ways in which pollution can be cleaned up. The amendment is intended to be helpful and positive and to give the agency an encouraging and developmental role.
Amendment No. 66 is intended to strengthen the agency to some extent by encouraging it not just passively to have regard to developments in the field but actively to follow them. Both amendments are intended to encourage the agency to take a practical and active interest in new technological developments for dealing with pollution. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness is right to draw our attention to what I think is a rather curious clause. It must be absolutely right that the agency should be at the forefront of the development of new techniques. After all, the relationship between new technology and care for the environment is a very important one, and I would hope that the agency would not merely follow but show the way.
I confess, now I come to look at it again, that I am not really sure what is meant by "follow" in this context. It is capable I think of meaning either "shall be aware that these developments are going on", "shall come along afterwards acting on them", or almost "shall listen to them as one would to a radio which was on in the background". It is a very strange statement.
Having said that I believe the impact that new technology can have on the environment is a very important one; nevertheless, if we are to have guidelines this topic is one which perhaps is appropriate. I also find its place in the Bill a little curious.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, tabled by the noble Baroness—perhaps in the

797
alternative—propose that the agency's duty to follow developments in technology and techniques should be amended so that it becomes a duty to promote such developments and their use, or at least to have regard to them.
Clause 5(4) provides an expression of the agency's duty to keep up-to-date with the technology and the techniques in order to be able to discharge its functions effectively. It cannot be seen merely as an academic exercise.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that those with a knowledge of the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will be familiar with its current duty to follow developments in technology and techniques for preventing or reducing pollution of the environment due to releases of substances form prescribed processes (Section 4(9) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990), and this underpins its role in ensuring the use of BATNEEC (the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs).
So far as promoting developments themselves, elsewhere in the Bill (Clause 35), the agency is placed under a duty to make arrangements for the carrying out of research and related activities by itself and others in respect of its functions, and that duty could cover the development of new technologies and techniques where appropriate. The NRA, for example, has used its research and development programmes to follow developments in discharge and environmental monitoring and to develop and promote new technologies for those purposes. The legislation as drafted gives the agency all the powers it needs in that respect to carry out its functions effectively, and that to require it to promote developments in technology and techniques would go too far in imposing on it a poorly defined role in promoting technological developments which is more properly the concern of others, and I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: It is disappointing that the agency cannot be given a more positive role in promoting technological developments. The agency will be in the forefront of knowledge of systems dealing with pollution and will, I imagine, have at its fingertips the results of research and development throughout the world. I should have thought that it would play a useful role in helping to develop technologies in that field.
I continue to think that the word "follow" sounds incredibly passive. In many places elsewhere in the Bill the agency is required to "have regard to", and it would be an acceptable amendment to change "follow" to "have regard to", which sounds slightly more positive and requires the agency to involve itself more directly in up-to-date research rather than merely to be aware of it, as the noble Baroness Hamwee has suggested, as a sort of background radio noise that it does not have to listen to if it does not want to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Availability of information to non-governmental agencies
. It shall be the duty of the Agency to make available and accessible to any non-governmental agency the data and information necessary for that agency's effective contribution to research and to the design, implementation and evaluation of programmes conducted by the Agency.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friends and I have been wondering whether the amendment should have been grouped with the earlier group of amendments relating to open government. It is, after all, allied to subjects that we have already discussed. But the delay has enabled me to make one additional point which has occurred to me.
We talked in the earlier debate about publication, and I think there we meant "publish" in its normal sense, its commonly used sense, of something quite active. The amendment deals with "publication" in the more passive sense of "making available". It is intended to enable the Government to comply with its commitment under Agenda 21. I am advised that it is Chapter 27, paragraph 27.10(f). I am aware of the environmental information regulations, and by putting down the amendment we are seeking to encourage the Government to be as open as possible in this important area. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: We support the amendment. There are interested groups which would make good use of information supplied by the agency.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 69, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to insert a new clause placing a duty on the agency to make certain information available to non-government agencies.
It is of course right that the general public and organisations outside government should have access to information about the environment agency: As we have discussed, the Bill already contains important specific provisions concerning the information which the agency may, or must, provide. In addition, each agency will be required, under Clause 49, to produce an annual report which must be published. That will provide people with a broad description of the work undertaken by the agency during the year. Clause 35 specifically confers power on the agencies to make available the results of any research which they carry out, either free of charge or on payment of a fee. Further, the agencies will be required to keep public registers of information in relation to their pollution control functions and to ensure that those are available for inspection free of charge and that, on payment of a reasonable fee, copies of entries in those registers may be obtained.
The agency will also, as we have discussed, be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 which the noble Baroness mentioned. I believe that the provisions of these regulations, in addition to the powers and duties in the Bill, will be sufficient to enable non-government agencies to have access to all the

799
information they need from the agency to enable them to make an effective contribution to research or to evaluate the agency's role.
I therefore think that Amendment No. 69, which seeks to introduce a new clause to that effect, is unnecessary, and I ask the noble Baronesses to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: As the Minister said, Clause 35 provides that the agencies may make the results of their research available in return for payment of a fee. If the Minister would prefer us to debate the matter under Clause 35, we can do so. As we are on the subject, he might like to explain—I should be interested in his comments—whether this should not be a higher obligation—a mandatory matter rather than discretion, as it appears at present in the clause—on the agencies, unless he plans to tell me that the agency must make its results available, and may charge a fee for doing so. I do not believe that that is what the clause says at the moment.
Viscount Ullswater: I sought to indicate the number and variety of reports and publications which the agency will make available. I was not drawing specific attention to Clause 35. I mentioned it in passing as one of the areas where the material would be available. I also mentioned the annual report and the entitlement to other material through the environmental information regulations to which the agency will be subject.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minster for that explanation. It is a matter to which we must return, because I am becoming a little more alarmed and not less. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69A not moved.]
Clause 6 [General provisions with respect to water]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 6, line 41, leave out from ("Agency") to the end of line 42 and insert ("to further").
The noble Baroness said: This is another of the great omnibus group of amendments. They have a unifying theme in that they seek to increase protection for various aspects of the environment and to strengthen the agency's role in that respect. Thus Amendment No. 70 will ensure that the agency's general duties with respect to water are clarified and strengthened.
The present wording of Clause 6 requires the agency, only to the extent to which it considers desirable, to promote the conservation of natural beauty and amenity of inland coastal waters. The amendment seeks to reinforce that protection.
Amendment No. 82 seeks to strengthen protection for historic buildings and archaeological sites. Amendment No. 87 is a slightly different style of amendment in that it seeks to preserve current freedom of access to woodlands and other places of natural beauty. Similarly,
800
Amendment No. 88 seeks to maintain current freedom of access to historic buildings, architectural and archaeological sites.
A number of amendments have been tabled by other noble Lords. Having fallen into the trap of rather explicitly making it clear that I did not understand the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I shall not at this stage attempt to interpret them, but say merely that my impression is that I thoroughly support them. They are attempts to extend the agency's roles and responsibilities. For example, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, extends them to include estuaries and sea areas, to ensure that the agency's role is made explicit.
There are also some amendments which ensure that local authorities notify the agency of areas within their ambit which are particularly sensitive or which may be affected by works or activities carried out on that land by the agency. In that sense, these are all attempts to increase the agency's protective duties, to increase its general environmental and recreational duties, and to provide protection, conservation and access to buildings, sites, objects, and areas of natural beauty, such as woodlands, mountains, moors and heaths. I beg to move.
Lord Marlesford: The noble Baroness was kind enough to refer to the grouping. Amendment No. 74, which she and I have signed, relates to water. Is it appropriate to take it with this group of amendments? It seems to fit in rather well with the earlier amendments.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am willing to include it. I have not been trying to increase the group; in my efforts earlier I tried to diminish it. I am happy that water resources be included in the group.
Lord Derwent: I speak to three rather special amendments (Nos. 95A, 97A and 97B) in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addison. They also figure in this grouping. I am authorised to say that the Association of National Parks which is the body representing the chairmen and chief officers of the national parks and the Broads Authority strongly support the amendments.
The problems arise in Clause 8(2) which requires a national park authority to notify the agency of land which is of particular importance from an environmental point of view that might be affected by the agency's future activities. Only when the agency has received such a notification is it, in turn, obliged to notify the park authority before undertaking works of various kinds.
That gives the national park authority the almost impossible tasks of trying to determine, first, what land is of particular conservation importance within a park; and, secondly, whether such land may be affected adversely by the possible wide range of agency activities. Not only does that threaten to create a two-tier quality of landscape in a national park, but it is unclear how it would be possible to differentiate between different areas of a park when we are talking, for example, of pollution risks such as toxic emissions or acid rain.

801
The effect of Amendment No. 95A would be to make consultation by the agency mandatory when the agency intended to carry out work which affected any part of a national park, the point being that land has been included in the national park because it has already been determined that it is of particular importance, otherwise it would not be in the national park.
Amendment No. 97A is tabled in order to ensure that there is no distinction between the need to consult on works which affect land within a park and works which affect water. Therefore, it is purely technical.
Amendment No. 97B seeks to ensure that the park authorities will be notified about the plans of the environment agency before the works become imminent. They will therefore be able to make their views known well before the works are undertaken. I have in mind, for example, the situation in which the agency is working on a river catchment plan within a national park. It is sensible for the park authority to be notified before the plans are finalised, otherwise there may be a huge waste of time and effort. The planning stage will end and the park authority will then be notified that the work is about to start. That explains why there may be objections.
The Association of National Parks strongly believes that it should not be asked to go through the bureaucratic problems and the local political problems involved in differentiating between sections of the parks. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept all my amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 90 which stand in my name. We have had a good discussion about the role to be played by the new environment agency, which I welcome. However, it is important that the agency is set up with the strongest possible legal framework in order to allow it to perform its vital environmental duties. Therefore, it is of great concern to me that the Bill in its present form may weaken the environmental duty to further conservation under which the National Rivers Authority currently operates.
I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Renton in the Chamber. During the passage of the Water Act in 1989 he and I persuaded the Government to strengthen the NRA's environmental duties. I am disappointed that only a few years later that important duty is under review, in particular as it has proved so helpful to the NRA.
The Committee will be aware of the attention that Clause 7 attracted before the Bill received its First Reading. I was delighted by the Government's moves to strengthen the clause before the Bill was published. However, they do not go far enough. The duty to further conservation does not apply to pollution control functions. That point concerns the National Federation of Anglers, which believes strongly that the duty to further conservation should apply to all the functions of the new agency and that pollution control should not be excluded.
The clause as it now stands appears to be most unjust and there can be no valid reason for the exclusion of that duty, other than the fact that pollution control costs
802
money. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Crickhowell eloquently explained the importance of the duty to the NRA and I hope that he will do so again today. It would be a great pity to lose this clear statutory direction when there is obvious evidence of the important role to be played by such a duty when protecting sites of special scientific interest or conserving water quality. There is even an example where prompt action to prevent pollution of Bassenthwaite Lake in the Lake District National Park resulted in it being declared a national nature reserve.
On Second Reading my noble friend the Minister assured the House that it was not his intention to weaken the agency's commitment to conservation. In the light of the evidence presented by the NRA and other bodies, will he assure me that the current duty to further conservation is not weakened by the Bill in such circumstances?
Lord Moran: I wish to comment on the amendments in the group which stand in my name. Amendment No. 71 proposes to leave out the words:
"This subsection is without prejudice to the duties of the Agency under section 7 below".
I believe that those words give precedence to Clause 7. Clause 7(1) (a) (ii) and (iii) subject the agency's duty to further conservation to guidance from Ministers on sustainable development. The way in which Clauses 6 and 7 are read together appears to subordinate almost all the agency's conservation duties to ministerial guidance and to a contribution towards development, albeit sustainable development. I do not believe that that is right. Unless the Minister can reassure me about the matter, I hope that the Government will consider removing the qualification in Clause 6.
I have also tabled Amendments Nos. 93, 94, 95, 97 and 98. They seek to widen the categories of concern which can be brought to the agency by English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales to include estuaries and areas of the sea, such as potential marine nature reserves, which may be affected by its operations. As such, I hope that the Government will regard the purpose behind the amendments as consistent with the habitats regulations that were introduced and discussed in this House earlier this year.
Clause 8 achieves a sensible and practical machinery for the conservation bodies to raise their concerns with the agency. It would be a pity if estuaries and vulnerable areas, especially of territorial sea, were left unprotected. No doubt a similar provision would be required in the equivalent clause relating to Scotland. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle behind the amendments. If so, I hope that the Government will be able to make the necessary change to the Bill before the next stage.
Lord Crickhowell: As I said previously, I am not a lawyer and I always hesitate when confronted with contradictory legal advice. At the beginning of the proceedings on the Bill, and in the light of representations made on the drafts that had been previously published so admirably by the Government so that we could have prior consultation, they made their substantial revision to the clauses relating to

803
conservation. We were told that all the anxieties of the NRA and other organisations had been dealt with. Since then I have repeatedly been told that we should not be in the least worried about the weakening, as we see it, of the pollution control functions.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook is unable to be here tonight but he has written to my noble friend the Minister expressing the view of English Nature, the organisation which he chairs, that it is a matter of anxiety. I too have written supporting that view. I hope that in the face of the advice given by two statutory bodies set up to be expert in their own field, the Government will not take lightly the advice that the present wording appears to represent a weakening.
In recent years we have been able to protect SSSIs from damage due to drainage, flood defence and fisheries management because of our ability to do things. We believe that our ability will be weakened if the wording remains in its present form. Often one has to take certain actions by using the other powers in a sympathetic manner. When one is carrying out flood defence work one extends the nature of the work that one would do and perhaps adds to the costs to have it approved. As a result of the wording of the appropriate provisions, it is thought that one has the right and the power so to do without challenge. It remains my belief that if we do not have amendments of the kind suggested there will come a moment when the agency will not be able to do what it wishes to do or, if it tries to do it, it will be challenged either by one of the funding bodies or some other organisation.
As I say, I am not a legal expert and I hesitate to be absolutely categoric about the matter. But when I find that there is a great weight of opinion in all quarters concerned with the environment, and particularly in the statutory organisations, which consider that a strengthening of the existing wording of the Bill is required, then I take it seriously. Nothing has been said to me in recent weeks which has convinced me that the department is right and that its critics are wrong.
My noble friend is extremely persuasive. I have no doubt that he will have a well-argued brief and that he will do his best to persuade me. If he does that, no one will be more pleased than I. I shall wait to hear his argument with interest. However, at present I am not convinced. If the noble Baroness, in the circumstances which prevail on her Benches this evening, does not wish to press the matter on this occasion, we may well wish to return to it later. However, I shall listen to my noble friend's arguments with great care.
Viscount Mills: I spoke in the debate on the Address last November on the very subject dealt with in Amendments Nos. 79 and 81. I support fully those amendments, along with my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Norrie. At that time, I highlighted the need to ensure that the duty to further conservation would apply to pollution control activities in the new agencies and especially pollution control activities in the water environment.
804
Conservation objectives are already at the heart of the regulatory system; for example, in EC directives where there are already numerous binding agreements to meet water quality standards for the protection of aquatic flora and fauna.
Equally, the NRA's duty to further conservation in relation to pollution control has led to very real environmental improvements. I give an example which I hope will appeal to the Minister and which certainly appeals to me as someone involved with fisheries. Populations of nationally rare fish such as the vendace and the Arctic char: are increasing in the Lake District following action taken by the NRA to prevent sewage treatment works discharging phosphates. That work would not have taken place without the duty to further conservation in relation to pollution control.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment, as without it I believe that the agency would lack clear direction on the matter and the basis for future pollution control regulation would be weakened.
Lord Renton: I shall be very brief because my noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness have already expressed their anxieties about the effect of Clause 7. The real problem is that this Bill is over-zealous with regard to detail. I should have thought that essentially it is a matter which we could paint with a broad brush and summarise the various functions and make them apply collectively overall.
It may be that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will say that as paragraph (a) relates to functions other than pollution control, paragraph (b) relates to pollution control functions and paragraph (c) relates to any functions, that should set our minds at rest. But we are then presented with a tremendous mumbo-jumbo of this kind followed, as it is, by the provisions of subsection (2) which say "Subject to subsection (1)" and then only some but not all of the well-known functions are selected, which do not include pollution control. It then goes on to say that subsections (1) and (2) shall apply to duties other than pollution control functions, and so on. It is extraordinary to express overall duties of great importance and a well-understood principle by tying them up with too much detail and unnecessary distinctions. I hope that my noble friend will invite the draftsmen to look again at this matter.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: We are dealing here with a number of amendments affecting the conservation duties of Ministers and the agency and the protection of sites of special interest.
The Government have considered carefully the conservation role of the agency. We are sure that it is right that the agency should have proper regard to the needs of conservation in discharging all its functions and the Bill seeks to ensure that. But it is essential to recognise that at the end of the day its core purposes are environmental protection and water management. I believe that the amendments proposed to Clauses 6 and 7 by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and my noble friend Lord Norrie would weaken its ability properly to discharge those functions by making the furtherance of

805
conservation of nature, protection of sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest and availability of access to sites to the public matters which must be achieved at the cost of other factors. Taken together, they go well beyond the equivalent duties on the National Rivers Authority and would change the nature of the proposed environment agency.
For example, Amendment No. 70 to Clause 6 would replace the existing requirement on the NRA by elevating the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland and coastal waters and land associated with such waters, the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic environment and the use of waters and land for recreational purposes from matters which the agency is to promote to the extent that it considers desirable to matters which it must further irrespective of the impact on its other functions or cost. Not only is that unreasonable in itself; I have to say that I believe it is unworkable. What, for example, is the agency to do where there is a clear conflict between furthering the conservation of flora and fauna and furthering the use of waters for recreational purposes?
Amendments Nos. 79 and 81, moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie, extend the duty on Ministers and the agency to further conservation to the agency's pollution control functions, and Amendments Nos. 90 and 92 are consequential upon those.
The duty in Clause 7 already incorporates an extension to the requirement to take account of conservation to encompass integrated pollution control functions and waste functions. Therefore, it would be a complete misrepresentation to suggest that the Bill is simply a weakening of the existing arrangements for taking account of the needs of conservation.
As I said in the debate on Second Reading, the existing NRA duty is not unqualified and must be adapted to the broader functions of the agency. I must tell my noble friend Lord Mills that to further conservation in every case would be inconsistent with the effective discharge of the agency's role in issuing environmental licences. For example, in issuing authorisations under integrated pollution control, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution does so on the basis of the best practicable environmental option utilising best available techniques not entailing excessive costs. In doing so, it is right that it should have regard to the needs of conservation. But it would be a radical step which I do not believe would be in the interests of environmental protection if its ability to issue such authorisations was constrained by a need to further conservation in each case.
Nor do I believe that the changes to the duty in relation to water discharge consents will in practice damage the interests of conservation. The needs of nature conservation will continue to play an important role in determining acceptable discharges to water, as at present. That is a normal part of the arrangements for delivering acceptable discharges under the relevant European and domestic legislation and is not, in practice, driven by the duty under Section 16 of the Water Resources Act.
806
Similarly, while I fully accept, and the Bill recognises, the desirability of preserving sites of archaeological, architectural and historic interest, and public access to those and to natural areas, they cannot be made overriding duties. They can conflict with other equally desirable requirements and each other, requiring a balanced judgment. As I said on Second Reading and subsequently, I believe that we have the balance right. However, I shall consider most carefully what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said about the concerns that the statutory agencies have put forward and consider whether the wording is correct.
In Amendment No. 71 the noble Lord, Lord Moran, seeks to remove the reference to the duties under Clause 6 without prejudice to those under Clause 7. Clause 6 places a general duty on the agency to promote conservation and recreation in relation to inland and coastal water and land associated with those waters. The duty applies,
"to such extent as the Agency considers appropriate".
Clause 7 requires the agency to further conservation (or to have regard to it) generally, not just in relation to inland and coastal waters and land associated with those waters. That duty applies whenever the agency is formulating or considering proposals relating to its functions. Clause 6 gives the agency an independent role in relation to conservation and recreation in relation to the "watery" environment. Clause 7 ensures that the agency does what it can in relation to conservation in performing its other functions. The Clause 6 duty is expressed to be "without prejudice" to the duties of the agency under Clause 7. That makes it clear that the Clause 6 duty does not detract from the duty imposed by Clause 7; in other words, the duties are independent of each other and are accumulative. The noble Lord seeks to remove the "without prejudice" provision. As I understand it, that would leave the relationship between the two clauses unclear. For that reason, the amendment should not be accepted by the Committee.
I have a deal of sympathy with the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in introducing Amendments Nos. 93, 94, 95, and 97. They reflect the noble Lord's desire to ensure that the agency is made fully aware of all areas of special interest as regards their flora, fauna, physiographical and geological features when carrying out its statutory obligations. The amendments seek to extend the definition of sites of special scientific interest and to widen the powers of the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales to notify the environment agency of areas of nature conservation interests over estuaries and the sea.
My difficulty with the amendments arises from the fact that the primary function of the SSSI system is to ensure that the nature conservation value of terrestrial sites—and, for the most part, that includes estuaries—is taken fully into account when development proposals and changes in management practice that would cause damage are considered. I fear that the amendments are inconsistent with the existing provisions in both nature conservation and water industry legislation, both of which apply to land only. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are concerned to ensure adequate protection for the coastal areas and the sea.

807
Members of the Committee will be aware that, in July last year, my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside announced four new major coastal policy initiatives. They include proposed new policy guidelines for the coast, a best practice guide to coastal management plans, a review of by-law making powers relating to coastal management and the establishment of a coastal forum. I believe that those measures offer the best way forward to protect the marine environment. They will ensure that all those with an interest in the sea are aware, when appropriate, of areas of special interest.
English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales will continue to involve the environment agency in the making and the day-to-day management of marine nature reserves. In addition, the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 provide mechanisms for the conservation of European marine sites designated under the habitats and birds directives. Regulation 13 requires nature conservation bodies to inform, among others, such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State may direct. That will include the environment agency.
While on the subject of protection of the sea, I should also mention Clauses 84 and 85 of the Bill which will provide that the agency's sea fisheries committees and Ministers may exercise their powers to regulate fisheries for environmental purposes. I believe that those arrangements should fully meet the aims of the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 85A and 97A proposed by my noble friend Lord Derwent would have the effect of requiring the national park authorities and the Broads Authority to notify the agency of all land and water in their areas. The powers given to the national park and Broads authorities under Clause 8(2) do not weaken the water, environmental and recreational duties placed on the agency by Clauses 6(1) and 7. As an additional safeguard, however, we believe that the national park and Broads authorities should demonstrate that importance of their areas, and they should give reasons why the agency should operate in a certain manner when considering activity in those areas.
The meaning of Amendment No. 97B is unclear, but could require the agency to consult a notifying body before its own project planning purposes were complete. I do not consider that to be an efficient way of working. An agency must be allowed to complete its own planning procedures before being required to consult others. I believe that that is only businesslike.
Clause 8 establishes machinery whereby heritage and conservation bodies can raise specific conservation-heritage matters with the agency where its operations would cause particular problems for land and, of particular importance, by reason of the conservation-heritage purposes in Clauses 6(1) and 7.
Amendments Nos. 96, 99, 100 and 101 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would change the nature of Clause 8 by widening its application to encompass any land in a local authority area (apart from land in national parks). The local authority would be able to make a similar reference to the agency of
808
conservation-heritage concerns about any land. Given that the powers described are already given to the four bodies covered by the clause, there seems no reason to give formal duplicated powers of the same description to local authorities. I very much hope that effective consultation between the agency and local authorities would, in any event, render any such amendment unnecessary.
In summary, the Government are not seeking to weaken the agency's commitment to conservation. But that commitment must be integrated into the proper delivery of the agency's functions and recognise the need for judgments that balance potentially conflicting requirements. I do not believe that the amendments would in practice strengthen the agency. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Crickhowell: I believe that almost all the arguments advanced by my noble friend were persuasive. Indeed, I have no difficulty with most of them. I am also conscious of one of the penalties of hurrying into the Chamber after a debate has begun and then picking up one's papers. In those circumstances, one does not produce a very well-argued case. Certainly, my noble friend Lord Mills gave the Committee a much better example than I did. I believe that my contribution was well adrift of the point.
It seems to me that my noble friend produced quite a good argument for the pollution control duties currently exercised by HMIP under BATNEEC, and so on. Indeed, he produced a strong case. However, my noble friend did not extend that argument to apply to the pollution control functions that are at present operated by the NRA. I do not believe that the authority has ever had any difficulty; in fact, it has found it a great advantage to have such a duty. I do not believe that it would have been possible to carry out the functions described by my noble friend Lord Mills if the authority only had to have regard to the desirability of conserving. Because it was a duty, the authority was able to go further than would otherwise have been the case.
As there is a problem with the HMIP type of duty, it is said that we must weaken the duty which applies to the existing NRA functions. It does not seem to me that that is a logical or necessary conclusion because one could approach the matter by qualifying that duty so that the HMIP functions could take account of BATNEEC and all those other matters, but still make it possible to do the kind of thing that my noble friend Lord Mills described.
Listening to the argument produced by the Minister I confess that I am still not happy. Indeed he began to persuade me just by that one phrase that there was a gap here and that there really was a weakening of the existing NRA functions. But he was so persuasive in everything else he said on all the other amendments that I may have merely got him wrong on that point. I shall

809
want to study extremely carefully what he said and to take advice on it and to see whether it is necessary at some later stage to look at the matter again.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I think the generality of the Minister's arguments were very persuasive, but I am disappointed that he is not willing to look at some of the detailed wording here and there which I think might be improved. As regards Amendment No. 70, Clause 6(1) states:
"It shall be the duty of the Agency, to such extent as it considers desirable".
It seems to me that that is contradictory. If one has a duty one cannot then decide whether or not it is desirable. I believe that the wording in Amendment No. 70 which proposes that it would be the duty of the agency to further conservation etcetera is more logical. I urge the Minister to have a further look at the wording because if one can decide that something is not desirable, how can it be a duty upon one? It seems to me that that is inherently contradictory. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that wording. Otherwise I withdraw the amendments with the reservation that we may come back to some of them at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70A and 71 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion may I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1994
7.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 29th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are today debating a short instrument which withdraws the grants available to farmers throughout England, Scotland and Wales for waste handling facilities from the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme.
Before I explain the function of this instrument I should like to describe briefly the current capital grant arrangements, so that the change may be seen in context. These arrangements, referred to generally as the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme (or F&CGS), were composed of two parts. The first, the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989, provides for one-off investments. The second, the Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1991, provided grant for investments undertaken in the context of an improvement plan and implemented the UK's capital grant measures under EC
810
legislation. I should perhaps say at this point that until late last year it was mandatory to run a scheme under the EC regulation. The obligation was withdrawn following a proposal by the European Commission and this part of the scheme lapsed on 31st December 1994.
The instrument we are debating today, the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1994, which came into effect on 30th November 1994, removes the grant assistance for facilities for handling, storing and treating farm waste. We also introduced, at the same time, the Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which remove that grant assistance under the improvement plan side of the scheme. The reason that we have two instruments is to ensure uniformity between the two parts of the scheme then in force.
Although the plan side of the scheme is now closed to new applicants, those farmers who submitted plans for approval before the deadline of 30th November 1994 will still be eligible for grant. We will also accept claims under the non-plan side of the scheme for waste handling measures where the claimant can demonstrate that there was a commitment to provide the facilities before 30th November.
Our decision to withdraw farm waste grants was taken against a background of an extremely demanding public expenditure round. But we feel also that the time is now right for farmers to accept the full responsibility for the costs associated with waste handling facilities. When the scheme was introduced in 1989 the then Minister of Agriculture announced a provision of up to £50 million over three years for waste handling facilities, in recognition of the need to tackle the problem of farm waste pollution. In fact since the scheme's inception over £150 million has been paid in grants to farmers in the UK for the installation or improvement of waste handling facilities, representing a total investment of about £300 million. In England and Wales 11,500 farmers have benefited. This clearly shows that we have succeeded in getting the message across to farmers that they needed to improve their efforts on pollution control. Even more significant is the fact that in 1988, the year before the scheme was introduced, there were 940 serious agricultural pollution incidents. In 1993 only 63 major incidents were reported.
Farm waste grants should not, however, be seen in isolation. While they have been withdrawn, free pollution advice and help in the preparation of farm waste management plans continue to be available. We have made widely available to farmers the codes of practice for the protection of soil, water and air. These give good practical advice and guidance on how to avoid pollution. Moreover we are continuing to invest around £2 million per year in research programmes designed to produce results to help farmers manage farm wastes. Furthermore it is our intention to provide assistance for waste handling measures in any area which is designated as a vulnerable zone under the EC nitrate directive.
Although grants for waste handling facilities have been withdrawn, grants for conservation items such as the provision, replacement and improvement of

811
hedges, traditional walls and banks and the repair or reinstatement of traditional buildings continue to be available under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme. We will be providing around £8 million for these grants in Great Britain until February 1996 when the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme will expire. We are currently reviewing the integration and focus of environmental schemes in the context of the transfer of Countryside Stewardship from the Countryside Commission to my department. We will consider how best to take forward assistance to farmers for planting and laying hedges and restoring stone walls and so on in the light of that review.
In summary, the instrument before the House results from a considered review of the F&CGS. In recognition of trends in pollution incidence we believe that it is now right to remove the grants offered under the scheme for waste handling and storage. I commend the instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 29th November be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].-—(Earl Howe.)
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I trust that we are all aware that the farming community is subject to ever increasing pressure to become more sensitive to environmental concerns and indeed statistics show that it has risen to this challenge very well in recent years. The number of pollution incidents caused by agriculture has declined significantly and more and more farmers are taking their environmental obligations seriously. I fear that the clement weather of last year may indeed have created a false sense of security as regards lowering risks in certain areas.
The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme has contributed much to this process by giving farmers a real incentive to invest in the substantial cost of installing or improving waste handling facilities. For this reason the news that the Government have decided to abolish totally the capital grants for effluent disposal has been received with considerable dismay by the farming community and in particular by those involved in the livestock sector. With. the incentive removed, there can be no doubt that farmers will be less able to meet the expense of installing and improving the necessary pollution control facilities.
While I welcome the Government's commitment to the reintroduction of some form of assistance for effluent disposal when the nitrate vulnerable zones are formally designated next year, I remind your Lordships that the nitrate vulnerable zones will cover only a relatively small proportion of agricultural land—some 650,000 hectares out of a total UK agricultural land area of approximately 18.5 million hectares. Pollution incidents can occur in any part of the country and adequate controls are needed on all agricultural holdings to guard against such incidents. The Government's
812
policy of confining environmental assistance to particular areas should not be at the expense of the wider countryside.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as we have heard, the scheme has been a good one, as long as it has lasted, and it has had considerable beneficial effects. As the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said, the number of agricultural pollution incidents has fallen—from roughly 4,000 to roughly 3,000 over a period of five years. However, that is still a significant number of incidents and those which are attributable to dairy and beef enterprises probably amount to about 66 per cent. of the number involved. There is still, therefore, a major problem of disposal of animal waste as opposed to other sources which might cause pollution. I understand that the National Rivers Authority has concluded that poor containment of slurry or silage liquors and spillage when storage areas fail are the main problem.
The impact of excessive organic materials on aquatic habitats can be variable. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, spoke from the farmer's point of view but I wish to talk more about the nature of conservation. Sudden inputs of organic materials can kill large numbers of fish and other animals. Long-term, diffuse inputs may cause slower but still significant changes in habitats and biological communities.
The scheme is one of a series run by MAFF which offer incentives to farmers to maintain and, where appropriate, enhance management of the countryside. Included in them are environmentally sensitive areas and schemes recently introduced under the Agri-Environment Regulation 2078/92. What the Government have been doing is all good stuff. However, it appears that now we have a situation where savings are being made, probably without the necessary attention being paid to the damage that might be done.
In the current review of environmental land management schemes, will the Government address the role of the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme as a whole? In view of the still significant number of recorded agricultural pollution incidents, the high uptake of waste handling grants and the opportunity to review the effectiveness of the scheme in the context of all schemes, we suggest that the Government continue to offer those grants until such time as they cease to be effective.
Now that provision of grant aid for waste handling facilities is being withdrawn, what steps do the Government intend to take to ensure a continued downward trend in the number of agricultural pollution incidents? That is a very serious question, to which we need a direct answer if the order is to be accepted. What assistance, if any, is now available to farmers to install waste handling facilities? Would the Government consider reinstating financial assistance under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme for waste handling facilities on a discretionary basis where financial hardship could be proved? It seems to me that that last point is very important; in the present agricultural climate, there will be farmers who cannot afford to do what needs to be done. If that is so, from the point of

813
view of the farmers themselves, the health of the countryside and the health of the wildlife, the farmers must be helped.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for his usual lucid exposition of, I am afraid, a rather disappointing order. From what he said about the impetus behind it, it is clearly Treasury driven. I understand that the order was approved in the other place only 10 minutes ago, so we shall not have the benefit of looking at their deliberations. However, on this side of the House we take it extremely seriously, as may be seen from the presence of my noble friend Lord Peston in full fig.
What I find hard to understand is that, in the explanatory note attached to the order, we see that, as the Minister said, the order varies the farm and conservation grants and complies with Article 12 of the European Council regulation on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures. It is a little hard to know how a scheme which removes the provision for payment of a grant in respect of facilities for handling, storage and treatment of agricultural effluent and waste and related fixed disposal facilities actually improves the efficiency of agricultural structures. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
We are, of course, aware of the reduction in the grant rate over four years. From 1989 to 1993 it was 50 per cent. for a year, from 1993 to 1994 it was 25 per cent. and it is now to be removed altogether. It would be helpful if when he replies the Minister could expand a little on the Government's intention, which he mentioned, to deal with the nitrate vulnerable zones in 1996.
The capital grants have obviously been a great help in the livestock sector and have helped many livestock farmers in all areas of the UK to install and improve pollution control facilities to meet their environmental obligations. They have been an important incentive for farmers—I speak from experience here, having heard from a number of farmers—to make a serious contribution to reducing pollution risk, and they have contributed to a significant fall in the number of pollution incidents caused by agriculture.
The figures which the Minister quoted of grant aid of £150 million relating to a total expenditure of £300 million and the fact that the number of incidents dropped from 940 to 63 from 1989 to 1993, illustrate the size of the problem and how quickly it could get out of hand again. That is put against a small saving of the order of £8 million in 1995–96. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the actual savings to public expenditure from the ending of the grant scheme.
We are debating the Environment Bill at the moment and obviously we are all aware of the anxiety that there is about pollution and the general wish to enhance the environment. It seems to be an odd way 'to go about meeting that public anxiety with what I believe is a fairly small saving in public expenditure. Ending the grant scheme will undoubtedly reduce the incentive for farmers to invest in proper effluent storage and disposal facilities. I am sorry to say that if, as a result of the
814
order, there is an increase in agricultural pollution incidents, the Government must bear their share of responsibility for those incidents.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I fully share the aims and objectives of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce a strong economy and reduce public expenditure. I have sat through too many public expenditure rounds not to be sympathetic to the problems that inevitably flow to individual departments. However, in a sense it is a little ironic that we should be debating this scheme in the middle of our discussions on the Environment Bill. I felt that I must stay behind in the Chamber to hear the Minister put the scheme forward, bearing in mind the huge importance for the environment of the expenditure that has taken place in recent years because of the existence of the grant scheme.
The trouble with farm pollution is that it is particularly lethal. When it occurs, it has a devastating impact upon the water environment. There have been many cases and when they occur they could wipe out the ecology of large stretches of our rivers. The problem will not go away. Farmers will continue to need to produce new storage facilities. Indeed one of the problems is that old storage facilities both become out of date and deteriorate, and sometimes they become dangerous. The whole business is now extremely costly. I had responsibility for agriculture in Wales for nearly eight years. I represented a constituency with almost more milk producers than any other. So I understand the problems of the farming industry and I know the difficult times through which it is going, as does my noble friend the Minister.
There can be no doubt at all that there will be a reduction of investment in this very desirable preventive work. I can understand that that may perhaps be necessary for a short time, but I have been warned as to the effects by a number of people whom I have met. Only two or three weeks ago I met a consultant who advises farmers on the Welsh border who told me that in his view for a time it would bring investment of this kind almost to a standstill; he feared very greatly as to the consequences.
I hope therefore that the Government will look very carefully at what happens. I hope that in the course of the next 12 months they will take the advice of the NRA, and after that of the new environment agency, about what the impact may be. If there is a deterioration, or if the voluntary investment that they hope for does not take place and the environment is threatened, I beg my noble friend to keep an open mind, and to be ready to come back and look at the matter again.
As I say, I entirely understand the need for this measure. I do not wish in any way to challenge the Chancellor's objectives. We have all as Ministers had to make this kind of saving. It is not with any sense of criticism but with a sense of concern that I utter these words. I fear that there will be a consequence, and I

815
believe that before very long the Minister or his successor will have to come back with some revised scheme.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for the points that they have raised. Perhaps I may turn first to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Addison and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who made similar points. Both expressed their disappointment that the grants have been withdrawn. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked whether we might consider reinstating the grant, either on a discretionary basis or more generally. Even my noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked me to keep an open mind about doing that.
As I have explained, farm waste grants have been available for something like five years. That, we feel, has been long enough to allow farmers generally to have an opportunity to apply for grants. Many of them have done so. The number of serious incidents—which is a telling measure of how the industry is responding to the threat of pollution—has dropped considerably. Farmers are now much more aware than they were. But we recognise that farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones will face an essentially new situation. For that reason we believe that it is reasonable to provide a special dispensation and extend the provision of grant for those farmers. I shall comment on nitrate vulnerable zones in a little more detail in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked what the Government would still be doing to address the threat of pollution. We have a comprehensive range of measures to tackle pollution. First and foremost there are the farm waste storage regulations, which set minimum construction standards for new or substantially altered farm waste storage installations, and indeed existing ones which the NRA considers present a significant pollution risk. There are penalties for non-compliance.
MAFF has published the codes of good agricultural practice that I mentioned. Those are available free. They give advice to farmers and growers on how to plan and manage the disposal of farm wastes to avoid pollution.
Free pollution advisory visits are still available from ADAS. Farmers can choose between a general visit covering advice on pollution related matters or assistance in the preparation of a farm waste management plan. Those are still proving very valuable to many farmers.
MAFF works closely with the NRA in targeting selected river catchments for intensive farm waste management plan campaigns to encourage farmers to draw up their own farm waste management plans. One should not omit to mention the penalties that are available in magistrates' courts for the pollution of water courses which act as a considerable incentive not to do any such thing. The maximum fine is £20,000.
Finally, MAFF has an extensive research and development programme in place to tackle the problem of farm waste pollution.
816
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about a review of the farm conservation grant scheme. All conservation grants will be reviewed as part of the wider review of environmental schemes. Naturally we will keep the position under close scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked what the savings will be from withdrawing waste grants. I can tell him that the expected savings in the United Kingdom in 1995–96 will be £8 million; in 1996–97 £17 million; and the same figure, £17 million, for 1997–98.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell expressed his fears for the future of investment in waste handling facilities by farmers now that the grant has been withdrawn. I can assure my noble friend that we will keep a very close eye on the number of pollution incidents that occur and the way in which farmers respond to what is undoubtedly an ever present threat.
A base-line study was carried out three years ago in order to determine the extent of the agriculture pollution control problem in Britain. A follow-up study is now under way which will evaluate whether there has been any change in pollution risk. It will assess to what extent the waste grants that are offered under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme have contributed to any change.
The withdrawal of waste handling grants under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme should also be seen in the wider context of public expenditure plans, as I have mentioned. UK domestic expenditure for agriculture in cash terms, is due to rise from an anticipated £1,080 million for the current financial year to £1,100 million for 1995–96. Within this we have shifted resources and although farm waste grants are withdrawn, over the next three years we are able to provide £43 million for measures to assist farmers in the six Objective 5(b) areas in England. Measures include assistance for processing and marketing produce, including the marketing and promotion of speciality food products with a local image, the development of novel agricultural produce and farm-based tourism—measures which I am sure noble Lords will consider to be as important as we do, and which reflect our wish to target assistance towards areas of specific need. That is a theme that underlies much of the agri-environment programme. In that context the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made particular mention of ESAs.
One such example of targeting is the nitrate vulnerable zones. Although, as I mentioned, grant assistance has been withdrawn under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme throughout the UK we shall restore the provision of assistance for waste handling measures in any area which is designated as a vulnerable zone under the EC nitrate directive. The proposed designations in Scotland, England and Wales have been the subject of a public consultation exercise, and the responses are currently being considered. It is expected that the designation will be made some time later this year, followed by regulations to apply in the zones at some point before the end of 1999. This means that in a certain number of clearly defined areas farmers will be facing more explicit restrictions, with a view to reducing the impact of nitrate on water there.

817
These restrictions are likely to include manure limits expressed as maximum amounts of nitrogen per hectare, together with periods when manure may not be spread. This means that the farmers concerned will be facing new restrictions and they may have to improve their waste storage and handling facilities in order to be able to comply. It is in recognition of these additional obligations that we intend to provide those farmers with assistance in the form of eligibility for grant aid.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Does he have any idea of the grant level that may be applied in those areas? Up until November 1994 it had been reduced to 25 per cent.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I would like to help the noble Lord but unfortunately no decision has yet been reached. Discussions are in hand to determine the most appropriate way to provide assistance for items of this kind in NVZs. I am afraid that we are some way away from reaching a conclusion.
Pollution risks have become more widely recognised over the period in which farm waste grants operated—a period during which I believe government help was more than generous. It is pleasing to record that the number of farm pollution incidents over the same period has declined. I feel confident that farmers will continue to respond responsibly, even though grant aid is no longer available.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 until 8.5 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 6.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert:
("() It shall be the duty of the Agency to maintain, improve and develop for recreational and navigational purposes the waterways in respect of which the Agency exercises functions as a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, which brings us back to navigational matters, it may be convenient if I give a few notes on the background of what I am trying to achieve in a number of amendments connected with navigation.
It is estimated that there are about 7 million casual visits by people to the British Waterways' canal and river system and an equivalent number of casual visits or day trips to the River Thames and the National Rivers Authority waterways. The recreational 'use of the waterways is not just by those who own or hire a boat. It includes those who come down to the water's edge to picnic or walk and those who take trips on passenger boats or day launches. They enjoy the visits because of the combination of the management of the waterway and
818
the spectacle of boats and their movements. I do not feel that many people would wish to make a visit to a waterway that was derelict.
The three organisations which look after the interests of those to whom I should like to refer as the navigators are: the British Marine Industries Federation, the Royal Yachting Association and the Inland Waterways Association. Those three organisations have sought to look after their interests in a responsible way and to recognise the quality of the management of the waterways by the NRA on the Thames, the Fens and its other navigations. However, they are concerned that navigation is a very small part of the activities of the NRA, even though it has benefited from a rather higher profile than the situation would warrant.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is not still in his place. I should like to have paid a tribute to him on behalf of the boating interests. Co-operation with the NRA has been extremely good, especially at regional and lower levels. I believe that quite recently they have been given an even higher profile in that organisation.
With regard to the proposals for the range of activities, staff structure and management structure of the new agency, there is a genuine concern that navigation will form an even smaller part of those activities. With that in mind, I seek to raise the profile of navigation and give better representation and contact with the management in the new environment agency, without making any fundamental change to the Bill.
I turn to the amendment itself. Noble Lords will be well aware that a considerable number of government Acts contain special provision for salmon and freshwater fisheries. The amendment aims to provide a duty to improve and develop recreation and navigation similar to that which is already provided for fisheries in the Bill. I feel it is important that there is a provision to develop rather than just maintain recreation and navigation, which follows earlier provision in the original Water Act of 1889.
I do not seek any special priority provision for those who use the navigations. I merely seek parity with the fishing interests. The Minister was kind enough to accept my first amendment at a late hour the other night, for which I am exceedingly grateful. I shall be interested to hear his reply on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Moran: I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Greenway. It is important that the agency should take proper account of recreational and navigational responsibilities. I imagine that it will take over the waterways for which the National Rivers Authority is now responsible.
The only point I wish to make is that if anything like this amendment is acceptable to the Government, it should be borne in mind that there are one or two waterways where the interests of boaters and navigators and the interests of fishermen may conflict. It will be necessary for the agency, as it is for the National Rivers Authority, to balance the interests of those two groups. Unfortunately they do occasionally conflict and I am thinking particularly of the River Wye. The lower Wye

819
is a navigation. The National Rivers Authority is not at present the navigation authority, but it may become so. If it does, it would need to take full account of the fishing interests on one of the most important salmon rivers in England and Wales. Therefore, if wording of this kind were included in the Bill, there would need to be a few extra words indicating that those two interests must be balanced.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, asked the Committee to consider including in Clause 6 a specific duty on the agency in respect of recreational and navigational use of other waterways for which it is responsible. The Bill before the Committee transfers to the agency without change the NRA's existing responsibilities in respect of waterways.
As I said when replying to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, on Tuesday 17th January, we shall shortly be issuing a consultation paper seeking views from interested parties on the future organisation of the waterways which are currently the responsibility of British Waterways and the NRA. That will provide the opportunity for waterways' interests to advise government of their visions for the future of those waterways. It would be premature to seek to change the nature or disposition of those responsibilities as suggested by the amendment without taking heed of the outcome of that consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out that, as drafted, the amendment has the potential to conflict with the fisheries duties in Clause 6(6) and we would need to be extremely careful about whether there was a connection between them. We would want to avoid any tension between the two. Having said that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greenway: I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. I am of course aware of the navigation review proposed by the Government and we hope that it is on the way to coming forward. It has been a long time in the pipeline. I take his point therefore that in many ways it would be premature to do anything until we had the result of the review.
As I said when I moved the amendment, I am merely trying to achieve parity for the boating interests with the fishing interests. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Moran in regard to the lower reaches of the River Wye, where a possible conflict may exist. However, I do not believe that it would be beyond the bounds of the new agency—if the wording is slightly altered—to cope satisfactorily with the situation.
I accept that the drafting may be faulty and may lead to conflict. In view of that I reserve my judgment on the matter and will think about it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert:
("(c) of promoting the efficient use of water in industry, agriculture and the home;").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendments Nos. 73 and 206 is to extend the water resource management duties of the agency, the water undertakers and the Office of Water Services to include promoting the efficient use of water. I am glad to see that the third amendment in the group, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hilton and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, addresses the same point. These are probing amendments. They are both supported by the RSPB, which believes that the Bill is an opportunity for Parliament to promote the efficient use of water.
As background, I understand that the NRA has been extremely worried about the increasing use of water. The demand for public water supply has increased by 50 per cent. over the past 30 years. That has resulted in serious environmental problems, quite apart from the problems for the NRA. It has caused problems for wetland birds and habitats of national and international importance, many of which we have an international obligation to protect. For example, English Nature identified over 100 sites of special scientific interest which are being adversely affected by over-abstraction.
The demand for water is likely to continue to rise—the NRA suggests that it may rise by as much as 27 per cent. over the next 30 years. That is the worst case scenario. That would mean large investment in new resources and consequential environmental damage. However, the NRA estimates that with efficient use of water that increased demand could be kept as low as 4 per cent. over the next 30 years.
The environmental agency will be in a unique position to influence demand for water through its water resource functions and the amendments will ensure that the agency has a duty actively to promote demand of management measures. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I intervene briefly to say that earlier this evening I tabled a new clause to come later in the Bill which will appear in the Marshalled List tomorrow. It places on the water undertakings, the companies and on the regulator—Ofwat—a duty to conserve water and provide for sustainable development. In a sense it is the counterpart of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
I believe that this matter is something that the Committee will need to address on more than one occasion; it is something which certainly the regulator feels is lacking in the present legislation. As the noble Baroness rightly said, if water is used extravagantly, it inevitably leads to the need to increase resources and build reservoirs when perhaps they may not have been necessary if people had been encouraged to be more economical. There have been various discussions in the Chamber on the metering of water. I have made speeches when I have said that metering is one of the ways to bring home to people that there is a cost in that the more water they use the more they will have to pay.
The idea of putting a duty on the agency, the regulator and the companies to promote water conservation is something to which even in our watery island—and today in this part of the country it has been very watery

821
indeed—we should give careful consideration. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to make sympathetic noises not only as regards the noble Baroness's amendment but also in relation to my new clause which I have tabled in my own name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Bancroft and Lord Dainton.
Lord Monkswell: We are at a little disadvantage, in that we do not yet have before us the text of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I support it. I have mentioned this matter in the House before—that is to say, that the efficient utilisation of water cannot be left to the market mechanism which apparently the Government espouse so warmly. In the long run the efficient utilisation of water cannot be determined by just increasing the price. That is one of the arguments for metering. I am attempting to summarise the argument, as I understand it, which is that the metering of water will enable consumers to identify the price of the water they are paying for and therefore that they will take steps to reduce their expenditure.
The fundamentals of water consumption relate to the technology which we use in our day-to-day lives. Only a change in that technology—which, unfortunately, will not come about through the operation of the market mechanism—will enable people to maintain or improve their standard of living by the utilisation of new mechanisms of water efficiency.
For that reason, I wholeheartedly support this amendment. If the environment agency has that duty and responsibility, it can look at the whole situation without the constraint of what I describe as the "market mechanism". I am sure that this amendment will introduce a new dimension to the debate about the utilisation of water. I am also sure that it will be very beneficial to the future of this country.
Baroness Hamwee: I associate these Benches with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. It is an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred to "our watery island". Perhaps that is one of the problems; namely, that the public do not understand that, despite the amount of water that falls upon us from the skies, nevertheless there are difficulties in the provision of water. It is a matter of confusion that, in periods of bans and drought orders, people feel that there should be enough water to supply the need.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 73 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, would add to the existing duties for conserving, redistributing and augmenting water resources and securing the proper use of water that the agency will inherit from the NRA a new duty to promote efficient use of water. Amendments Nos. 206 and 373 would supplement this by imposing similar duties on the director general of water services and on the water undertakers.
The Department of the Environment considered, among other things, whether additional duties and powers were required to promote the efficient use of water in a consultation paper about the sustainable use of water, Using Water Wisely, which was published in 1992. We intend to publish shortly the comprehensive
822
action plan arising from that consultation and in the intervening period we have been considering the comments that we received. We have, where appropriate, taken action.
The combined effect of the noble Baroness's proposals may seem to produce rather a large number of people trying to do the same thing. Clause 6 of the Bill already imposes a duty on the agency, similar to that currently enjoyed by the NRA, to take all such action as it considers necessary to conserve water resources and to secure their proper use. What action the agency takes will be for it to decide in the light of any guidance that it is given, but it will clearly be bound by that duty in advising those considering applying for water abstraction licences and in considering applications. In appropriate circumstances it will be able to go further, as the NRA already does—for example, in its publications advising farmers on good irrigation practice. I suggest, therefore, that no change is needed in respect of the agency. But most water used in the home, and much of that used in industry and agriculture —I note water used in commercial property seems to be excluded from the proposed amendment—will be obtained from a water undertaker rather than under licence directly from the agency. In these circumstances a specific duty on the agency to promote the efficient use of water among certain users therefore would not be effective.
Turning to the director general of water services, and dealing with him in isolation, we do not believe that he should be given a duty directly to promote the efficient use of water. That would require him, for example, to mount public education campaigns and issue publicity material about water use. That, in our view, is not the role of the director general. His major responsibility is the economic regulation of the water undertakers and the supervision of their quality of service. Rather, the determination and publication of standards which in his opinion water companies should achieve might be more in keeping and in line with the responsibilities of the electricity and gas regulators. He needs no new powers for that.
However, the third string to the bow is Amendment No. 373, in the name of my noble friend Lord Marlesford and spoken to enthusiastically by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. It puts water undertakers under a similar duty. This seems to us a more promising approach. Coupled with the setting of standards by the director general, it could offer helpful possibilities. The amendment is, however, defective, in that it would remove the primary duty of water undertakers to develop and maintain an efficient and economical water supply system within their area, something on which the whole of the public water supply system depends. I therefore could not accept it.
While I am sympathetic to the good intentions behind this amendment, and I accept that water undertakers should do what they can to conserve water, it is also important that any measures they implement should properly consider the costs as well as the benefits of those measures. The issues of promoting the economic and efficient use of water have been considered in Using Water Wisely and will be dealt with further in our

823
comprehensive action plan. I am therefore happy to undertake that we will consider, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, whether it should be amended to introduce now a duty on water undertakers to promote water conservation. With arrows directed at three targets, I believe that one may find its proper home. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I know that my noble friend will look at the new clause very carefully. It reached me only this afternoon and that is why it is not being taken now. In any event, if one is putting duties on the undertakers, which is what the new clause does, and the power of the regulator is to monitor and supervise that which is the meat of the new clause, the new clause may come very close to what my noble friend has said he is prepared to look at very carefully. The matter will come up at a later stage in Committee. We may find that in a sense we have almost anticipated what the Government are anxious to do.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I did not say that I shall study very carefully the new amendment that has only just been tabled.
Baroness Nicol: I am greatly encouraged by the support of all sides of the Committee and by the Minister's answer. I hope that we shall not all become locked into seeing water metering as the only solution. That seems to happen whenever we discuss water efficiency. We may have problems. I know that a number of water undertakers are not too happy with the clause which requires them to embark on water metering because they have encountered many problems with it. I do not think that we can rely on that as a solution, even if we supported the idea, which I personally do not.
However, I am glad that we are to have another opportunity to debate this subject under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I look forward to improving the argument at that stage. I hope that we shall reach that amendment a little earlier in the day.
I considered that specifying a "duty to promote" implied a little extra activity that might get us nearer to achieving water efficiency, rather than specifying simply a "duty to conserve" which is rather static. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the encouragement that I have received and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("the obligation to develop water resources") and insert ("any obligation").
The noble Lord said: I have an idea that my noble friend replied to this amendment before I had the opportunity of speaking to it, but perhaps not. At any rate, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to make a few remarks about it. I think that he said that the amendment is not acceptable, but at that time he had not had the advantage of hearing such arguments as I have for tabling it. It is a pretty innocent little amendment
824
and I had hoped that he might be able to accept it. Yesterday one amendment was accepted on the run so surely it is about time that we had another—and I thought that this might be it. All that we are saying is that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as relieving any water undertaker of any obligation for the purpose of performing the duty, rather than focusing on the obligation to develop water resources.
When the 1989 water legislation was before Parliament—before I became a Member of this House—many people tried to move the emphasis from the development of water resources to their conservation, but they did not succeed. It is ironic that we then had three years of drought when people never stopped talking about the need to conserve water resources. Of course, the time in the calendar year to talk about conserving water resources is not on a wet January day. Nevertheless, I hope that my noble friend will recognise that this is a very important point and that we must specify in the Bill a new responsibility for the conservation and management of water resources. My amendment slightly changes the emphasis towards that.
There are three main sources of water for use in our land. The first is rain, which we all know is extremely uncertain and unpredictable. Secondly, there are rivers and underground sources of water. We all know the horrors that can result from over-abstracting from either. We have had three years to demonstrate that, if that were necessary. It is rather like Pharaoh's dream. Thirdly, there are reservoirs. In principle, reservoirs are the epitome of sustainable development. They conserve water (which would otherwise run into the sea) and raise the water level—that is, if we believe in global warming. That is a spin-off advantage. Reservoirs conserve water when it falls in excess quantity in the winter, enabling it to be used at other times in the year. So, in general, reservoirs are a good thing although their location is often extremely important—
Lord Crickhowell: Aha!
Lord Marlesford: My noble friend says, "Aha!". I am not quite sure what he means but he will no doubt tell us in a moment. The location of reservoirs is obviously important and we should ensure that they do not do undue damage to the landscape. In principle, however, the conservation of water through reservoirs is right.
However, overtaking all those three questions about the supply of water is the need properly to conserve and manage our water supplies. My noble friend referred a moment ago to the arrival of the final version of Using Water Wisely—I do not know whether its arrival is imminent. That publication was an encouraging start, but it was issued in 1992 and we have since had two full calendar years without the definitive version. It would have been nice if the Government could at least have published that in time for our consideration of their important Environment Bill, of which the clauses on water must be some of the most important. I am disappointed that the final version has not yet been produced. I wonder whether we could be given a little more information as to when we shall have it. If something takes two years to produce, one tends to take

825
it with several grains of salt, as we heard when we discussed changing our time in relation to Europe. Incidentally, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that I was not involved in that discussion. I did not even understand the arguments, let alone the balance of the arguments.
Lord Howie of Troon: I must apologise to the noble Lord. I thought that I heard him speak on that occasion, but I must have been mistaken.
Lord Marlesford: The noble Lord may have seen me, but that is not necessarily the same thing.
We urgently need the Government's definitive view on this matter. Two years is probably long enough for them to reach a conclusion. There is always a tremendous danger in consulting for too long. I remember reading a wonderful letter in The Times some years ago by A. P. Herbert who said that the Government were like an elderly hypochondriac, always asking for a second opinion, but never taking it. I think that we would all like to have the Government's definitive version of Using Water Wisely soon—and certainly before the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
The idea that sustainable development generally is independent of the question of water supply is clearly fallacious. I am particularly worried about the Government's plans for East Anglia—for obvious reasons because I happen to come from there. East Anglia can be defined in many ways, but in this context I believe that it means Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, where there are plans for huge developments which will make enormous demands on the water supply. I am concerned that such plans may involve reservoirs in unacceptable areas—
Lord Crickhowell: Aha.
Lord Marlesford: My noble friend says "Aha" again and I await his argument with bated breath.
We must bear in mind that water is a limited resource in this country. My amendment seeks, in a gentle way, to suggest that, rather than specify an obligation to develop water resources, we should take into account any obligation that there may be under the general duty to maintain the water supply system which, of course, I accept.
Lord Moran: I should like strongly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said. I agree with everything that he said. This is a question of the greatest importance. We need to conserve water in this country—surprising as that may seem. I think that it would be helpful if the Bill placed more emphasis on the role that the agency might be able to play in that. It is important that the new environment agency should take the lead in tackling that problem.
I said on Second Reading that I was concerned about maintaining and, in many cases, restoring adequate flows in our rivers. I gave two examples: the Upper Kennet and the Driffield Beck. There are many others. I believe that in 1989 the NRA identified 40 rivers in which the flow had diminished disastrously, but that was a minimal list. I can think of many other rivers that are
826
threatened and I believe that the NRA has identified several more. I make no apology for repeating what I suggested on Second Reading, that it is very important that we should consider moving abstraction down to the mouths of rivers instead of doing it at the top. That is something that the environment agency could do. If the water is extracted from the ground near the mouth it does far less damage to the flow of the river. Abstraction at the top causes the river to run dry every two or three years, with great damage to fish life and wildlife generally, and to the rivers which we all want to see preserved. I therefore support this amendment very strongly.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to delay the Committee over the amendment, but I have been sufficiently aroused by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, who I thought was urging us to build reservoirs—perhaps one in or near the village of Marlesford, suitably landscaped. But of course he meant a bigger or grander one to deal with the whole of East Anglia. Then it became clear that he was advancing the classic NIMBY argument; that he would like adequate reservoirs for storing water so long as they were not in his back yard.
There is equal opposition to the long-established proposal for a reservoir on the back door of the family home of the Government Chief Whip in another place. There is considerable excitement about the proposals there.
There is some support for a reservoir proposal in a spot in East Anglia—it is being studied by one of the water companies at the moment—which is a curious gap in the map. It is a sparsely populated part of East Anglia, with few roads, and no one seems to object. The only difficulty is that the cost of constructing it there will be a good deal higher than constructing it near the family home of the Government Chief Whip in another place. But that issue may be resolved.
While of course there is a need for reservoirs, my noble friend must not advance the case that there is something inherently good in the reservoir solution as against other means of dealing with the matter. The NRA has shown that the powers that exist in the legislation are capable of having a very strong influence on the decisions taken. There is at present one water company in the south east of England which is complaining fairly strongly that we are taking a particularly austere and restricted view about its plans for building a reservoir and that we are being altogether too tough about it. Particularly in Kent, we are insisting on the need for conservation—for cutting waste and other conservation measures—before approval will be given for the construction of reservoirs.
The difficulty does not lie in anything that might be resolved by my noble friend's amendment; the real difficulties that will hang over the agency are the existing abstraction rights presently held by companies. The environmental regulator's problem is that if those abstraction rights are damaging the rivers in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, then the possibility has to be faced that very considerable compensation will have to be paid.

827
The problem can sometimes be solved. There was a notable case with the Darent in Kent whereby, as a result of careful negotiation with Thames Water, a contribution through the NRA— from the other licence holders effectively—and a contribution by Thames Water covered by the pastoral arrangements in the system regulated by the financial regulator, the Darent is to be rescued. A river that was dry for two or three years during the summer may now be restored.
The problem at the heart of achieving effective control of the system and protecting the environment lies more with the existence of substantial abstraction rights already held— whether needed or not, they are not lightly surrendered—rather than anything that I suspect will be dealt with here. In cases where reservoirs are needed I hope my noble friend will encourage them to be built, but he should not offer them as a total solution. If he is impatient with the Government over producing their document, he should at least acknowledge that the NRA has produced a strategy for water resources which has suggested that, with sensible economy measures and a drive to reduce waste, it should not be necessary to have any new, large scale transfer schemes or reservoir schemes for about 20 years. The drive for economy and efficiency is already producing a beneficial result.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: The Committee will be aware that a few weeks ago—I think in November, although I am not quite sure—we celebrated the centenary of the Thirlmere Reservoir in the Lake District, which supplies water to the great conurbation of Manchester.
The proposal for that reservoir—when it was a proposal and before it became a project—was greeted with the lack of enthusiasm with which projects of that kind are met nowadays. People decried it; they said how wrong it was and that it would destroy the Lake District—the kind of argument that we get nowadays.
We have had Thirlmere for 100 years. It is a large reservoir, it has been wholly beneficial to Manchester, and it is now regarded as an addition to the Lake District and not a subtraction from it. I am inclined to look at reservoirs with great and increasing sympathy, and I hope many more are built.
Viscount Ullswater: I think my noble friend Lord Marlesford misunderstood me. I was speaking to Amendment No. 373, which was grouped with the previous amendments, to which he did not speak. It was in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and it was to that amendment I was speaking not to the current one.
Again in my previous answer I indicated that the Government would publish shortly the comprehensive action plan which follows Using Water Wisely. I understand that shortly means shortly in this instance. I can go no further than that.
Amendment No. 74 would widen the proviso which says that the duties of the agency under Clause 6(2) shall not affect the obligation of water undertakers to develop water resources to meet their water supply obligation
828
under Section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991, so that the proviso would cover all their obligations flowing from that section.
I share the aim of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the agency's duties should not become a substitute for those of the water undertakers. We believe that the present drafting of Clause 6(2), which follows that of the existing provisions, achieves this aim.
I am quite tempted to enter into the discussion about reservoirs. As everybody will know, my name is resonant of a reservoir. I remember when I was at Cambridge there was a headline in the paper which said, "Ullswater will become sterile." That, I must say, was before I got married.
Joking apart, I should like to examine carefully what my noble friends and other Members of the Committee have said about the matter to see whether there is something we can bring forward.
Amendment No. 76 seeks to make it clear that the extension of the flood defence functions of the agency to parts of the territorial sea is without prejudice to the general environmental duties of the agency. There is no difference between me and the noble Lord on this point. We believe it is clear that the general environmental duty under Clause 6(1) extends, as the subsection says, to coastal waters, and the general environmental duty under Clause 7 extends, in one way or another, to all the agency's functions. The risk of putting in a special reference of the kind proposed by the noble Lord is that of unexpected effects elsewhere where the presence of the special reference here, and the absence of anything comparable somewhere else, might lead to some restriction being implied where it is not intended. There may be some confusion. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: I am grateful to my noble friend. I accept his offer to examine the way in which he might accommodate my amendment. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addisonmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 7, line 18, at end insert:
("() In exercising its powers under subsection (2) above the Agency shall at all times endeavour to protect and safeguard the interests of any owners of land insofar as those may be adversely affected by its actions.").
The noble Viscount said: The Committee will be aware that Amendments Nos. 376 and 377, which involve changes to Schedule 18, and thus to enabling legislation, are included in this group of amendments. Therefore I should like to speak to those amendments on the basis that they are all related to the abstraction of water.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 376—the first of the Schedule 18 amendments—concern the predicament of people, including landowners and farmers, whose interests are affected adversely by the operation of abstraction licences held by others in the vicinity.
Clause 6(2), as currently drafted, sets out the agency's duties in relation to the provision of water. I consider that those duties should not be exercised so as to damage

829
third parties in any way; in particular, I am concerned that the interests of landowners who may suffer adverse effects where water is abstracted by others under a licence granted by the agency, but who have no opportunity to secure compensation under current legislation because of the narrow definition of "protected rights", are safeguarded.
The costs faced by those landowners should be taken fully into account whenever the agency considers an application for a licence to abstract water. Under Section 39 of the Water Resources Act 1991, the agency may not issue an abstraction licence which derogates from protected rights. If such a licence is issued, the person whose rights are affected may claim damages from the agency by virtue of Section 60 of the Act. Conversely, the holder of an abstraction licence is protected by Section 48 of the Act from any action which may be brought against him in respect of the abstraction of water.
"Protected rights" are defined in Section 39(3) as either the rights prescribed in an abstraction licence or the right to abstract small quantities of water without a licence under Section 27(6). No protection is currently provided for landowners who enjoy the use of a small stream or a pond which may be affected adversely by water abstraction. Similarly, there is no protection against the lowering of the water table, leading to a loss of crops or trees or to the subsistence of land or any other private property, including buildings. Indeed, Section 48 of the Act denies landowners thus affected the rights which they otherwise might have had under common law to take action against the abstractor. There have been several cases in recent years where landowners have suffered in that way without any remedy in law, and that is grossly unfair.
The third of my amendments (Amendment No. 377) to line 14 of Schedule 18 deals with a related problem. Under current legislation, the NRA has the power to make emergency variations to licences for spray irrigation to curtail irrigation in times of dry weather before the authority resorts to a formal drought order which would control the use of water much more widely for purposes such as golf courses or car washes. The Bill as drafted will transfer those same powers to the new agency.
That power places an unjustified additional burden on the users of spray irrigation at the time they most need to irrigate, particularly for the high value salad and vegetable producers. Their products compete with imports, thus benefiting our balance of payments. Generally they receive no CAP support payments. Those users are being obliged to "take the first hit" on limiting water in the hope that other users will not, as a result, need to make sacrifices themselves.
What is the objective justification for singling out one user of water in that way? I see none, as the arrangements jeopardise the livelihoods of efficient British rural businesses. The argument is inequitable, illogical and unnecessary.
Amendment No. 377 would remove that inequality by removing the power to make emergency variations to irrigation licences. The amendment would not remove the agency's powers to curtail water use when
830
necessary. It would merely put agriculture on an equal footing with other users of water, as agriculture's use of water would be limited at the same time as everyone else's, through a formal drought order.
I am sure that the Government are as anxious as I am to encourage efficient, consumer-oriented agriculture, especially production which does not make a call on taxpayers through CAP subsidy. So I hope that I can look forward to a favourable reply from my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I support the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. He has presented the issue clearly. The Bill proposes the transfer to the agency of the existing powers to close down agricultural businesses merely by giving notice. Such a notice is likely to destroy the business. It affects no other industry in the same way. I should like here to speak personally. I was responsible for a large vegetable and mainly salad producing business. We were producing about 800 acres of high grade salad during the summer months as well as dealing with major imports and distribution during the winter. That business was dependent entirely upon irrigation.
The quality of product required by the supermarkets could not be produced without irrigation, and fairly regular irrigation. During drought the need for irrigation is maximised and often the fullest possible irrigation is not sufficient to sustain the quality of the product. In the context that I still retain some small partnership interest in that business, I must declare an interest to the Committee.
I want to ask the Minister whether he believes that the efficient agricultural business interests of this country are expendable; and, if so, why?
Lord Crickhowell: There is a dilemma here. It is the kind of dilemma which runs right through environmental protection, because there is always a conflict of interest. It is an odd irony that many of the problems that have been described—I understand them well—relating to spray irrigation have occurred in areas where the environment is under threat during droughts.
One often has the situation that in the area where people are complaining about restrictions on spray irrigation, they are complaining almost equally strongly about the devastating impact of excessive extraction on their local wetland, or whatever it may be. In recent years, a good deal of care has been taken by MAFF and those responsible to ensure that the greatest possible flexibility is introduced into the handling of spray irrigation licences.
There is no doubt that without the ability to have that control there would be real difficulties in dealing with the approach of drought. We should be careful. The original statutory provisions go back to the Water Resources Act 1963 which sought to strike a balance between the provision of water for water supply and the protection of individuals. We must be careful before we overturn an arrangement which for many years has got the balance about right.
The conservation duty has provided and will continue to provide protection from damage to the environment as a result of abstraction. Subject to the guidance from

831
Ministers on aims and objectives, and the references which they will include to sustainable development, that provides an alternative route for protection to agricultural businesses and others.
These are a complex set of relationships and I do not believe that they should be overturned by a single amendment passed in this Committee. It is a legitimate subject for further debate and examination and perhaps more work and study needs to be carried out. I should be most nervous of accepting an amendment of this kind without having worked out the consequences.
9 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that we are extremely sympathetic to the impact of extraction on the environment and would not want to extract in a destructive way. However, in my view it is manifestly unjust that the agricultural industry should suffer. For instance, as regards my particular case, just down the road is a chemical industry which, I am told, is using a million gallons per day. There is no restriction on that.
Viscount Mills: Although I understand the anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lord Addison, I wish to add a further point to the debate; namely, the apparent contradiction between Amendments Nos. 376 and 377. Surely, one of the precise reasons for the emergency variation of licences for spray irrigation is to protect the environment. That may also protect the owners of land. Thus abolition of the emergency powers in Amendment No. 377 could, in certain cases, work against the protection of the owners' land as advocated in Amendment No. 376.
Lord Monkswell: I hesitate to intervene because I know that the hour is late and we must get on. On my initial reading of the amendment I was antagonistic towards it and wondered why landowners should have a special interest. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has explained the matter to the Committee but I wish to make two points because we need to recognise the need for fairness.
As regards Amendment No. 75, I should be concerned if we were to concentrate only on the owners of land and not include the interests of other third parties. The noble Viscount mentioned streams and ponds. I can think of some landowners who may say, "I am not interested in that stream or that pond". I can also think of people who like to visit the countryside and who believe that small streams and ponds are very important. We need to have a wider perspective and include those other than landowners in that category.
Secondly, it must be totally unfair that people can wash their cars when water is scarce but farmers are prevented from protecting their crops. That is ludicrous and I hope that it is not the situation. However, if it is, something needs to be done about it.
Lord Marlesford: I have great sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Obviously, the mistake that was made in the past was to give abstraction licences. However, if people build up
832
businesses on the basis of the abstraction licences that they have been given one must think very hard indeed before one starts taking them away. That is retrospective action which I believe will be deplored on all sides of the Committee.
At the same time as there are such shortages, the Government are urging more development, for example, in the south-east. We know that water supplies in the south-east are not adequate for the Government's housing plans in that area. To do serious damage to totally legitimate enterprises—and legitimised by the Government—must be a mistake and unfair.
Viscount Ullswater: My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was correct in saying that the duties under Clause 6(2) effectively carry on the work of managing water resources in England and Wales introduced by the Water Resources Act 1963. I do not think that it needs the qualification that my noble friend Lord Addison proposes in Amendments Nos. 75 and 376. In carrying out this duty, the agency, like the NRA under existing legislation, will be bound by its more general duties under Clause 7(1) to exercise its powers in the water abstraction licensing system in the way that my noble friend seeks. It must take account of the likely effect on, among other things, the amenity of rural areas, plant and animal life and buildings. In that way, the interests of the land are protected and with them the interests of the landowners. In so far as any damage might result from any works undertaken by the agency, it, like the NRA, is bound by the specific works provisions, which provide for compensation. Parallel provisions apply to others who are authorised to carry out work for water resource development.
Amendment No. 377 would repeal Section 57 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and curtail the existing powers of the NRA to manage the effects of spray irrigation during drought conditions.
These powers form part of the armoury available to manage water resources during droughts. Water companies have powers to impose hose-pipe bans. The NRA has these powers in respect of spray irrigation because spray irrigation is a highly consumptive use of water; much of the water is lost through evaporation. Further powers can be conferred on both by drought orders. I understand the dilemma identified by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The fact that the spray irrigation powers are vested in the NRA does not mean that they should be used first. The aim is to put the decision on the use of powers as close to the area affected as possible, since local knowledge is essential.
I believe that my noble friend's anxieties have been answered by my reply and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Addison: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply and I thank all Members of the Committee for taking part in the debate. I wish to reflect on what has been said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Integrated catchment management
.—(I) It shall be the duty of the Agency—

(a) from time to time prepare a draft catchment management plan in respect of each catchment or such group of catchments as it shall designate;

(b) to consult in relation to such draft plan—

(i) the statutory conservation agencies;

(ii) any abstractor or class of abstractors having the right to abstract water from within the catchment;

(iii) any discharger or class of dischargers having the right to discharge granted in accordance with the pollution control functions of the Agency into the catchment;

(iv) the drainage board for any internal drainage district which lies within or partly within the catchment;

(v) any navigation, harbour or conservancy authority having functions in relation to waters within the catchment;

(vi) any local planning authority exercising functions in relation to land within the catchment;

(vii) such other interested persons as the Agency shall determine;

(c) to adopt the plan modified to such extent if any as it considers appropriate;

(d) thereafter so to exercise its powers and duties to further the objects of the plan.

(2) In this section "catchment" means the area drained by a single surface water system and any associated groundwater together with the adjoining sea as designated by the Agency.").
The noble Lord said. This is essentially a probing amendment. I should like to know what is the Government's attitude towards the concept of catchment management planning.
The National Rivers Authority has been producing, as time goes on, a whole series of catchment management plans which it produces one by one on individual catchments. Those plans are put out to consultation and the advice and views of everyone concerned are sought. Catchment management plans cover everything—water resources, the needs of water for drinking or for irrigation or for other purposes, fisheries, wildlife, navigation and so on. It has been an extremely successful exercise. What I have seen of it has impressed me greatly. Therefore, the object of my amendment is to ask the Government what is their view in relation to catchment management planning. I hope that they will assure us that they favour the concept and that in their guidance, they will encourage the environment agency to pursue it.
I am not anxious to be too prescriptive towards the environment agency. I believe that that is a sensible planning mechanism. The words "from time to time" appear in my amendment. There is no suggestion at all of trying to impose a rigid timetable. That concept enables all the features of a catchment to be looked at from an environmental point of view. It is a great advantage to have integrated planning over the whole of the catchment from the tributaries and the source to the mouth of the river as against piecemeal planning. It
834
enables water resources to be used in the best way for environmental standards; for example, in relation to statutory water quality objectives and biodiversity targets. It is a thoroughly good concept and I hope that the Government will agree to pursue it and that they will encourage the environment agency to do so. I beg to move.
Viscount Mills: As an employee of the NRA, I have some experience of catchment management plans. Indeed, at present I am part of a team involved in drawing up such a plan for the River Ribble in Lancashire. I endorse fully what the noble Lord, Lord Moran has said. Catchment management plans are proving to be effective in helping to direct the work of the NRA; in bringing together all its functions; and in ensuring that the NRA consults with other river users. In short, those plans are an integral part of the NRA's strategy for improving the water environment.
However, the responsibilities of the proposed environment agency will be considerably wider than those of the NRA. The catchment management plans developed for the management of the water cycle may require radical changes to accommodate the additional responsibilities of the environment agency.
In addition, certain other problems may arise if catchment management plans are based on a statutory basis. For example, rights of appeal would be required. Some flexibility may be lost in the way in which catchment management plans are carried out. At present there is room for flexibility according to need across the country.
I believe also that statutory catchment management planning may rival the existing town and country planning system which decides land use and planning issues. In summary, catchment management planning is successful on a non-statutory basis. It is very much to be hoped that integrated water management will be continued into the new agency. However, to make it a statutory duty may compromise the future work of the agency, and for that reason I cannot support Amendment No. 77.
Baroness Nicol: My noble friend Lady David regrets that she is not able to be here this evening, although her name is to the amendment. It pursues a point made by my noble friend and many others on Second Reading.
I too support the view that ICMP is the most effective unit by which to plan for and deliver environmental protection. I am sorry to hear someone from the NRA apparently drawing back from the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, at an earlier stage when he seemed to support the idea that that should be done by the agency.
I understand that the hour is late and I shall try to be brief. However, I should like to give Members of the Committee one example of the effective working of the NRA in the Anglia region which has attracted a good deal of attention this evening. In the Anglia region, the NRA does much more than simply pay due regard to conservation. Conservation is at the heart of project and catchment management planning.

835
In the Fenlands of East Anglia, the NRA has been involved in conservation projects that have great significance for endangered species. I shall not go into too much of the detail, but I must tell the Committee that the authority has succeeded in almost rescuing—and I hope will soon completely rescue—a very important site in which the fen raft spider, which is almost extinct, has been preserved. I should not like to see any change in the management of that area which would result in an end to that particular project.
The NRA is part of the working group that is halting this slow "death by drying" through much of East Anglia. It is working with Suffolk Water, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and English Nature to relocate boreholes and to restore the River Waveney. I hope that nothing that we do in the process of passing the Bill will interfere with the work that the NRA has been doing. I support the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: At first sight, I was interested by the amendment. I was rather impressed by the desirability which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, explained to us. However, perhaps I may speak from practical experience of what the position was in the fenland area of my old constituency of Huntingdonshire. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and indeed my noble friend the Minister to consider the application of the proposed new laws to the fenland drainage boards. There are many such boards in that particular part of the world; for example, there is the North Level, the Middle Level and the South Level.
Let us take the Middle Level, which is the one that I know best. In that respect, we come up against a difficulty as regards the definition of the word "catchment" in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. The section says that catchment,
"means the area drained by a single surface water system and any associated groundwater".
The Middle Level is, I suppose, drained by the Middle Level Commission, which is a single surface water system. But it is fed by the Great Ouse, the Cam and the Nene rivers, together with a number of other minor streams.
When considering the new clause, we need to consider the present responsibilities of the drainage boards in those fenland areas. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise for intervening during the noble Lord's speech. However, as I am sure the noble Lord realises, we have reached a late hour in today's proceedings. In the interests of the staff, it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should try to finish the business of the day by about 10 o'clock. From the Opposition, I do not wish in any way to inhibit the noble Lord, but I believe that the Minister will support what I have said. If we could get on with the
836
proceedings, I am sure that we would all be most grateful—and that includes, if I may say so, the Doorkeepers.
Lord Renton: I am grateful for the noble Lord's advice. I was only going to continue for about a further minute and a half, which would have expired by this time.
Nevertheless, in considering the matter, we should not ignore the effect that it would have on the present responsibilities of those drainage boards.
Viscount Ullswater: There is no doubt that catchment management planning is valuable. With the support of the Government, the NRA already employs catchment management planning as the main tool to achieve integrated environmental management. A river, and the land, tributaries and underground water connected with it, is treated as a discrete unit or catchment.
The catchment management plan is drawn up in consultation with all interested bodies and the public. All the bodies which the agency would be required to consult under the proposed new clause would in fact be consulted by the NRA under the present arrangements. From that description, it is clear that the only difference between our view and the proposals in the amendment is whether or not the management catchment plans should be statutory. It has always been our view that the National Rivers Authority should have a good deal of flexibility and discretion in the way that it carries out its responsibilities for river management and pollution control. Local circumstances can vary and change quickly.
All the processes which control the implementation of a catchment plan—abstraction licences, discharge consents and so on—have their own statutory consultation procedures. We think that, coupled with the commitment to the use of catchment management plans that already exist in the NRA, and which we would wish to see continue, is sufficient to ensure a proper foundation for the work of the agency. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in moving the amendment, said it was a probing amendment. I hope therefore with this assurance of the importance which we attach to the use of non-statutory catchment management plans, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the new clause.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think my main concern was that as the new agency will include responsibilities for air and for land as well as for water, that perhaps this concept might have become less urgent and in some way got buried. But I am greatly encouraged by what the Minister said and by his magic words that the Government would wish to see this practice continue. That is exactly what I wanted to hear and I am grateful to him.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, he knows much more about the fenlands than I do; but I think the answer simply is that circumstances vary greatly in different parts of the country and therefore this must be dealt with—as it is, and has been—on a regional basis by people who know the circumstances

837
of each part of the country. Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
(Amendments Nos. 78 to 82 not moved.]
Lord Howie of Troonmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 8, line 38, after ("buildings,") insert ("engineering structures").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to this group of amendments, I wish to draw attention also to Amendments Nos. 169, 170, 171, 172 and 174 to Clause 30, which is in the "Scots" part of the Bill. I do this because those amendments are identical to the group which I have been asked to speak to now and I do not wish to bother the Committee by speaking to them again when we reach Clause 30. I need do no more than refer to them at this point.
The point I am raising here in this group of amendments is a very narrow one; but I do not think that it is an insignificant one. The aim is to ensure that in the Bill architecture and engineering are seen to be of equal importance and of equal status in the duties which fall upon the various boards concerned. Engineering has climbed the social ladder in recent years a little. What was once the Science Research Council later became the Science and Engineering Research Council which was a step forward. I think I am right in saying that it has now become the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, but I stand to be corrected on that. This is a matter of importance to engineering.
I have raised matters of this kind several times before in the past, as the Committee may recall. I raised this matter as long ago as 1988 during the passage of the copyright Act. On that occasion, where a similar problem arose, the word "building" was defined to include fixed structure somewhat in the manner of the present Bill which defines "building" to include structure. I do not think that that method of dealing with the problem is really helpful as it is only after turning to the definition in the first part of the Bill that one realises that "building" includes structure, and not everyone would be inclined to do that. That is far too oblique an approach. I am really asking that the Bill should be direct. I wrote to the Minister outlining my arguments and what I am about to say this evening will be closely based on the letter that I wrote to him.
My argument is simply this. There are many artefacts which are worthy of being protected and conserved but which are not buildings in any sense of that word. That is especially true with regard to the waterways, where dams, water courses, locks, tunnels and other structures abound. Of course numerous engineering structures are also well worthy of protection, such as pumping engines, which have nothing to do with architecture or buildings in any sense of the word. A notable example is the Anderton Lift at Northwich, on the River Weaver. It is to be restored with the blessing of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the Department of National
838
Heritage. If ever an artefact ought to be called an engineering structure and not a building, the Anderton Lift is it.
There are many more examples and I notice that the principle at least appears to be recognised in Clause 35(9) of the Bill. That refers to "engineering or building operations", and it clearly distinguishes between the two different types of activity. If the activities are distinct and are so recognised in the Bill, it seems to me to follow that their results must be distinct and different as well.
It has been argued in the past in this House that such objects which I describe as being of engineering interest are already covered by their historic interest. Sometimes that may be true, though many of them are merely old rather than historic. The two words "old" and "historic" do not mean quite the same thing. In any case, that is also true of architectural objects. If an object or an artefact, as I prefer to call it, can have both an architectural and a historic interest, or an architectural interest instead of a historic one, it is obvious that another object could be worthy of preserving because of its engineering qualities, in exactly the same way as such an object might be protected because of its architectural qualities. There is no distinction between architecture and engineering in that case, so far as I can see.
To refer to it again, the Anderton Lift might possibly be of historic interest, but its engineering qualities are much more important than any historic qualities or age qualities which it might possess. It is for those engineering qualities that it is worthy of preservation.
It has been argued in this House—I must confess, a little to my annoyance—that the artefacts to which I refer are covered by their archaeological interest in the wording in the Bill, on the ground that archaeology includes industrial archaeology. I find that an amazing argument; I have been amazed by it before and I hope that I shall not be amazed by it again tonight. Archaeology clearly refers to ancient history and the study of antiquities. So far as industrial archaeology has any meaning at all, it is the study of industrial history by reference to its artefacts.
There again, if we study industrial history through its artefacts, those artefacts or objects, as the Bill would have it, might be architectural or they might be engineering in character. If architectural interests are to be considered as a separate item, in addition to or instead of archaeological, historical or any other interest, so should engineering interests. My minor proposal, to leave out line 42, seems to follow logically from that. If these arguments are sound, we do not need the definition on page 9.
An item might be preserved for a variety of interests. Let me put forward just one example. Let us consider, for instance, Tower Bridge, which is not terribly far from here and which we all know. It is barely a century old. I do not think that it has any historic significance. It certainly has no architectural interest; its architecture is quite grotesque. What it has is very substantial engineering interest—because of its structure and

839
because of the nature of the bridge itself. Tower Bridge would be preserved for its engineering interest and not for any other.
There is a precedent here which can be followed. In Public Bills, I have not been successful in convincing the Government to follow my arguments, cogent, precise and desirable though they might appear. On the other hand, I did manage to convince the British Waterways Board in the British Waterways Act a couple of years ago and the precedent was accepted. Although that was a Private Bill, I think it has the same standing in law as a Public Bill. That precedent can be followed if we apply ourselves to precedent, as we often do in this House.
I received in the post today an extremely agreeable letter from the Minister in reply to my letter to him. In the course of the letter he said that I would receive a very full reply this evening. I do not demand a very full reply. I merely want a very short reply in which he agrees to accept my amendments. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: In Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85, 89 and 91, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, seeks to ensure that architectural and engineering matters are treated equally and that engineering structures are properly protected. As the noble Lord said, I know that this is a matter about which he feels keenly, which he raised at Second Reading and on which he has subsequently written to me.
We agree that the Bill should provide for such protection and conservation where such structures or objects are of special interest. I have to say to the noble Lord that the provisions are broadly drafted in the Bill and it is not clear that the effect of his amendment would be to increase the protection of the kinds of engineering structure with which he is concerned. But I am advised that they would remove the protection from other forms of structure. They would therefore tend to limit rather than enhance the protection that is afforded under Clause 7.
The provisions in the Bill on these matters build on existing legislation. I do not believe that we should change them lightly. However, if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The noble Viscount said that the amendments would remove the protection from other elements or other classes. Would he care to elaborate on that? It is very difficult to see how they would.
Viscount Ullswater: To define one form of structure might indicate that other forms of structure were not included and protection would be removed; therefore there would have to be a long list.
What I am saying to the noble Lord is this. If the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments, I will undertake to consider carefully whether the wording provides sufficient protection for the kinds of structure with which he is concerned and whether there is need for some amendment.
840
The noble Lord indicated that he wanted to include other amendments which fall under the Scottish provisions. I do not feel that I can commit my noble and learned friend in the Scottish Office to respond in the same way as I do. But I will certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks and my remarks to his attention.
Lord Howie of Troon: I find that a very acceptable reply, except for one thing. I would like the Minister to consider these amendments in consultation with me. If that could be done, I should be very happy to withdraw my amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 8, line 42, at end insert:
("(iii) to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas").
The noble Lord said: I am under considerable pressure not to press this amendment. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment if the noble Viscount is prepared to see myself and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, between now and Report stage to discuss the proposal. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: For the convenience of the House, I believe that that is a very good proposition.
Lord Northbourne: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 92 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Coleraine: I wish to detain the Committee for just a brief moment to put to my noble friend a point that has been made to me by the Law Society on behalf of planning practitioners and applicants. I believe that it is a point of which my noble friend has notice.
It is thought that in its present form Clause 7 may unduly impede, prolong and make more complicated the planning application process. I am advised that the clause as drafted may give the agency power to act as a second planning authority, introducing a potentially conflicting second level of regulation. Under the normal development control process an applicant obtains planning permission for a development from the planning authority. As part of the determination process the local planning authority consults the regulatory authorities, currently the NRA and HMIP. The responses of the regulatory authorities are taken into account by the local planning authority when it issues its decision. If having considered the representations of the regulatory authorities planning permission is granted and the developer has to seek consent for works specifically involving a regulatory authority, e.g. land drainage works—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I apologise for intervening. I understand that we are now discussing Clause 7 stand part. I am afraid that I had no notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, would raise on this matter. I wonder whether it would be better if he raised it with

841
the Minister at an appropriate stage so that the Minister could reply to it after consideration. I really do not believe that the Minister can reply off-the-cuff to what appears to be a rather technical point.
Lord Coleraine: I believe that it is a point of which my noble friend has had notice. However, if he feels that I am wrong and he has not had notice I will sit down here and now.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Environmental duties with respect to sites of special interest]:
[Amendments Nos. 93 to 97A not moved.]
Lord Derwenthad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 97B.
Page 10, line 18, at end insert ("finalising any plans,").
Lord Airedale: I do not believe that "finalising" is a very good English expression. I suggest "completing".
[Amendment No. 97B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Codes of practice with respect to environmental and recreational duties]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardonmoved Amendment No. 102:
Page 11, line 16, at end insert:
("() such organisations as he deems representative of local authorities in England and Wales").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. These amendments deal with attempts to increase democratic accountability. Amendment No. 102 requires that Ministers should not make an order without consulting organisations representative of local authorities in England and Wales.
Amendment No. 105 requires that:
"No order shall be made under this section unless a draft … has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament".
Amendment No. 106 deals with a slightly different matter. It attempts to restore into the Bill the obligation on contraventions of codes of practice which appear in the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Water Industry Act 1991. It would require Ministers to take into account contraventions of codes of practice which currently exist in those Acts but which are not in the current Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My amendments, Amendments Nos. 103 and 104, have been put with the other amendments and I shall speak to them briefly. This is another instance of trying to give a higher profile to the navigation interests in the Bill. The amendment seeks to apply new words—basically, "seen to represent" —to words which are based on civil aviation legislation. They make it clearer as to whom exactly the Minister
842
should consult. I need not say any more than that at the moment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 5 prescribes the list of persons whom Ministers must consult before approving a code of practice in respect of the agency's environmental and recreational duties. The codes offer practical guidance to which the agency must have regard in respect of the underlying proposals in Clause 6(1) and Clauses 7 and 8. These amendments seek to add to that list.
Amendment No. 102, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seeks to add organisations which are representative of local authorities in England and Wales. Amendment No. 103 seeks to insert the words "and bodies" after "persons". Amendment No. 104 seeks to add "recreation and navigation" organisations to the list.
As it stands, the list contains the names of national bodies which have a particular interest in environmental and recreational matters. But the provision also puts Ministers under a duty to consult others as he considers it appropriate. In some cases that might well include local authority associations or navigational or recreational bodies; but there may be others, for example, fisheries groups, which would also need to be consulted in particular cases. It would not be appropriate to single out particular bodies.
On a technical point with regard to Amendment No. 103, there is no legal need to insert the words "and bodies". In law, the word "persons" encompasses both individuals and bodies.
Amendment No. 105 seeks to make an order to approve a code of practice subject to affirmative resolution in each House. Those codes of practice are not statutory guidance, which the agency is under a duty to follow. They provide practical advice and examples of desirable practice, to which the agency is to have regard when exercising duties which Parliament has conferred upon it. For that kind of guidance, the negative resolution procedure provides adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment No. 106 proposes that a subsection which is included in the parallel provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991 should be reinstated. I imagine that the noble Baroness is looking for an explanation of its omission in the Bill. That subsection derives from a corresponding provision in Section 106 of the Water Act 1989, which dealt with codes of practice for the privatised water companies as well as the NRA. As a public body, the agency, like the NRA, will be susceptible to judicial review. Anyone who is aggrieved can go to the courts and will not need to take the case to Ministers. Amendment No. 106 might have the opposite effect to that intended by introducing an element of doubt about the availability of judicial review in the circumstance stated. I invite the noble Lord and the noble Baroness to withdraw these amendments.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, particularly in relation to the contraventions of codes of practice, which is clearly a point of law that I had not understood. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

843
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 106 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Clause 11 [Advisory committee for Wales]:
Lord Elis-Thomasmoved Amendment No. 108:
Page 12, leave out lines 25 and 26, and insert ("to oversee all matters relating to the function of the agency within Wales.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 108 to 111 and the amendment that comes under Clause 12 are an attempt to strengthen the committee structure for Wales proposed in the Bill. At this late hour I do not need to repeat the discussion we had on Tuesday.
The intention of the amendments is to strengthen the committee structure in terms of name, function, representation, frequency of meeting and, in reference to the environmental protection advisory committee, to the actual territory covered. I shall refer only to Amendment No. 108 because the proposed wording seeks to strengthen the functions and ensure that the committee for Wales is an executive committee and not merely an advisory committee, and that it will have oversight of the functions of the agency within Wales. To me that is an acceptable compromise bearing in mind that the proposal for a separate agency moved by the official Opposition was rejected on Tuesday, and I request the Government to think again about the nature of those functions.
Amendment No. 109 seeks to include on the committee for Wales people who have also been nominated by the Secretary of State on to development agencies, the countryside council and land authority, to bring together within the body of the Welsh committee people who have the expertise to enable it to be an effective committee of the agency relating to its own function and also relating to the rest of the structure of intermediate government in Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Committee is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for moving Amendment No. 108 and, like him, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 109 to 111 and Amendment No. 120.
I do not want the Committee to feel that the Opposition abandoned the idea of a separate Welsh agency. We had lengthy arguments on the matter. If this Chamber or another place decides that there should not be a separate Welsh agency, then we wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his views that the advisory committee should be strengthened. However, I reserve my position on that matter until we come to a later stage of the Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 108 seeks to require the advisory committee for Wales to oversee all matters relating to the functions of the environment agency within Wales. Clause 11 already gives the committee a remit covering all of the agency's activities in Wales and any matters affecting or connected with the discharge of the agency's functions in Wales; but
844
the existing clause gives the committee the role of advising my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, as the minister responsible for setting the policy framework for the agency in the Principality. The amendment does not specify how such supervision of the agency's activities would be translated into action, whether by Ministers or by the agency. It is essential that the committee's purpose be to advise my right honourable friend, who is accountable for the agency's operations in Wales, not itself to oversee directly the agency's operations and remove ministerial responsibility. This parallels the arrangements for the existing National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee for Wales, which have worked well. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment.
Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 relate to the composition of the advisory committee for Wales. They seek to ensure that membership of the committee reflects a balance of views. I agree that the advisory committee for Wales will need to comprise a wide range of representative views, knowledge and experience relevant to the discharge of the agency's functions in Wales. Indeed, that will be vital for the committee to provide effective advice. Nature conservation and pollution control experience will be useful to the advisory committee, but they are only two of the numerous areas of expertise which it may need. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already committed himself to include locally elected members on the committee, as that is important to facilitate responsiveness to local needs.
I also agree with the principle of aiding communication and co-operation between the Welsh bodies mentioned; but specifying a need for common membership of all these other bodies could cause unnecessary complication. These amendments, specifying a considerable part of the composition of the advisory committee, would constrain my right honourable friend's flexibility to choose a balanced and effective membership, to which he is committed. He will of course take account of the importance of all the factors cited in making his appointments to the committee.
Amendment No. 111 requires the committee to meet at least four times a year. I agree that the committee is likely to need to meet more than the minimum of once but of course the provisions do not preclude that. This requirement is based on the legislation under the Water Resources Act which the existing National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee for Wales operates. In practice, that committee usually meets around three or four times a year, as necessary. I think a similar flexibility would be most useful for the Advisory Committee for Wales.
Finally, Amendment No. 120 seeks to require the agency, in determining its regions which will each be covered by an environment protection advisory committee, to include as its Welsh region the whole of the geographical area of Wales. It is important that the agency's Welsh region has a strong identity, and it is for that reason that the Bill as drafted requires the Welsh

845
region to consist wholly, or mainly, of Wales. The boundary will, however, need to be consistent with the overall structure determined by the agency.
The Government did not believe it sensible to come to a decision on the boundary of the agency's Welsh region in isolation from the agency's proposals for its organisational and management structure. It is intended, therefore, that the boundary of the agency's Welsh region will be determined by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales, in consultation with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the basis of proposals from the environment agency.
The environment protection advisory committee will be established by the agency to advise it on how best to carry out its functions in its Welsh region. It makes sense, therefore, that the committee for the Welsh region should not have a remit which may extend beyond that region. This is different from the position in relation to the advisory committee for Wales, which will be set up to advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales on the carrying out of the agency's functions in relation to the whole of the Principality, whatever the organisational boundary of the agency's Welsh region. I would ask the noble Lord, therefore, to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: In view of the fact that the noble Viscount has responded in detail to the content of the amendment, I am very pleased to withdraw it with the caveat that whereas I would warmly accept the extension of the Welsh boundary eastwards, I am not so happy about its withdrawal westwards. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 111 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Environment protection advisory committees]:
Lord Jenkin of Rodingmoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("consider any representations") and insert ("have regard to the recommendations").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I understand that we are also taking Amendments Nos. 113 to 119. We seem to have seven minutes left for a number of quite substantial points. I shall curtail my remarks in order to try to observe the spirit of the Rippon arrangements.
Clause 12 contains some very odd wording. Why does it say, "consider any representations"? It makes the regional advisory committees sound like pressure groups. Surely to goodness the agency should have regard to their recommendations. In those circumstances and with those stronger words, which lawyers may argue about, it clearly makes the advisory committees part of the agency structure and not some kind of tiresome appendage. Papers may have to be read but presumably they do not need to be given any substantive replies. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment.
846
If my noble friend believes that the words have the same meaning, I commend to him the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment who said to a Select Committee in another place that,
"if the words are different but mean the same, why do we not have the same words as they want"
—that is to say, what I want—
"so that they are not unhappy".
Perhaps my noble friend can make me happy by giving me my words.
Turning to Amendment No. 114, the Committee will know that there has been a great deal of criticism about ministerial patronage in relation to appointments. Why does the Secretary of State have to appoint the chairmen of these bodies? Why cannot the regional advisory bodies appoint their own chairmen? After all, the Secretary of State appoints the members of the agency and it seems perfectly straightforward to allow the advisory committee, when it has been established, to elect a chairman by its own majority.
Finally, on Amendment No. 118 and echoing points that have been made in earlier debates, I ask that,
"not less than one third of the members … are elected members of a local authority".
That reflects the fact that the waste advisory authorities have been local authorities and have, in almost every case, operated very satisfactorily. They are now to be taken into the agency. Those local authority committees have a great deal of expertise. They have been accountable locally and it seems highly desirable that a proportion—I suggest one-third—of the membership of the advisory committees should consist of local authority members.
Again when the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Select Committee in another place—I shall not go into the argument about boundaries because my noble friend has just dealt with that—he said:
"I would have to say that in environmental terms the crucial importance of the river catchment area is something one could not possibly [over]state. On the other hand, we do need to have proper relationships with local authorities and we do want to be very sensitive to local views".
I cannot think of any better way of doing that than that the Bill should provide that one-third of the members of the advisory committees should come from local authorities. I could have said a great deal more, but perhaps I had better not at this hour. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I should like to speak to the amendments that are in the same group as Amendment No. 112. I refer to Amendments Nos. 113, 115, 116, 117, 119 and 121, which stand in my name. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said about his amendment. One of mine goes rather further and suggests that more than half of the membership of the environment protection advisory committee should be made up of local authority representatives.
My other point in Amendment No. 113 is that the boundaries of the regions should be coterminous and the same as those of the local authorities. Throughout my police service I was bedevilled by different boundaries for police stations, courts, coroner's offices, and so on. It causes absolute chaos. I urge the Minister to accept

847
that this straightforward amendment would make the administration of the regions very much simpler and more sensible. It would enable them to relate to local people—quite apart from the local authority members who are represented on the regional committees.
Amendment No. 119 goes further in attempting to get local representation to be balanced and to include the views and expertise of those who have knowledge of pollution control and nature conservation. Amendment No. 121 is merely a consequential definition of what constitutes a local authority.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support the amendments relating to the question of local authority representation on the regional advisory committees. There is an additional fundamental reason why local authorities should be involved at this level, and I look forward with interest to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about it. That fundamental reason is that the local authorities are the planning authorities. Anybody who has seen a planning permission for waste disposal, which is inevitably and always highly controversial, will realise that it is exceedingly difficult to make a distinction between where a planning permission begins and ends and where the matter of waste regulation begins and ends. The two are intimately and inextricably intertwined. Since the agency is taking over the matter of waste regulation, I believe that the future development of this aspect of its work would be helped enormously if local authorities were intimately involved in discussions at this level at the very least and as of right.
10 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: Apart from the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I argued at about the same time—a couple of days ago—for the retention of waste regulation as a local authority function. I hope that we shall find a way of coming back to this subject later in the proceedings at a time when we can spend a little longer on it, otherwise we shall inevitably fail to do justice to the very important issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and others.
I support the raft of amendments. It will be only second best if local authority input is at the level of advisory committees; but it must be there for waste regulation and in connection with the other functions that the agency will undertake.
Lord Greenway: My Amendment No. 123 is also grouped with these amendments. Looking at the Clock, and bearing in mind what was said earlier, as I wish to speak to the amendment I wonder whether it will be convenient to the Committee if I do not speak to it now but bring forward the amendment again at a later stage. I do not know how the noble Viscount feels about that.
Lord Moran: I would welcome that because I should like to add a word on it as it affects fisheries. As there is minus half a minute, I should much prefer to deal
848
with it in a more orderly way at a later stage if that is possible, or talk to the Minister with my noble friend Lord Greenway.
Viscount Ullswater: I am in the hands of the Committee. If the Committee feels that that would be a suitable way to proceed, I am quite content to go along with it.
The new provisions in Clause 12 and Schedule 3 for appointing members to regional environmental protection committees are designed to provide an open and transparent method of ensuring that those committees reflect a wide range of interests in the agency's work in a region.
Amendment No. 112, introduced by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, seeks to change the agency's duty "to consider any representations" from an advisory committee to a duty "to have regard to" its "recommendations". There is little difference between "considering" and "having regard to" representations or recommendations—in either case they must be taken account of and given due thought. But "representations", in the current wording, would include recommendations and might also include complaints or requests for information. I think my noble friend's proposed formulation is rather narrower than what we have at present.
The group of Amendments Nos. 113, 115, 116 and 121 appears to attempt to ensure significant local authority representation on the agency's regional environment protection advisory committees. I can understand the wish of the noble Baroness to ensure that local authority interests are taken into account in the way the agency carries out its functions in any region, but I do not think this is an appropriate way of going about it. First, by seeking to ensure that regions for these purposes follow local authority boundaries, she is effectively removing the discretion of the agency to decide what the appropriate regions should be. It seems to me important that this should be left for the agency to decide.
Secondly, I do not think that giving local authorities the power to nominate 50 per cent. of the membership of a committee is the best way of ensuring that local interests in general are taken into account. Amendment No. 118 makes a similar proposal, but with one-third elected members for each committee. I should expect to see some local authority members on a committee—although not as representatives, rather as individuals who would play an active part in the work of that body. But I would not wish to specify the numbers that would be included. There are many other organisations and bodies which will need to have a place, and it is important to ensure a balanced membership with a wide range of expertise and experience relating to the agency's functions.
The agency will be required to draw up schemes for the appointment of members, specifying the kinds of organisations or individuals which the agency believes are likely to have a significant interest in the way the agency carries out its functions in that region, and indicating how the membership of the advisory committee is to reflect these different interests. Regional

849
interests will be consulted both on the preparation of schemes, and on the appointments to be made under them. The decision on the proportion of local authority membership on a particular committee will be taken in the light of that consultation. I would not wish to limit the effects of this new provision by laying down in the legislation that local authorities would have the power to nominate, with no further consultation, half or one-third of the committee's members.
Amendment No. 117 seeks to establish regional advisory committees made up entirely of elected members. That would be even less appropriate than the noble Baroness's other proposal and I do not believe that it would necessarily result in balanced committees.
Amendment No. 119 proposes further express provision in respect of the balance of members on REPACs. It is by no means clear to me how that could possibly be achieved if Amendment No. 117 were accepted. The provisions for appointing members are designed to ensure that these committees reflect a wide range of interests in the agency's work in a region. These provisions, with their requirements for consultation, will provide an open and transparent way of ensuring a balanced committee; I do not think there is any need for the amendment to make further express provision that representation on the committee should be balanced, and in particular include those with views and expertise on pollution control and nature conservation. Schedule 3 to the Bill should achieve that result; other amendments put forward by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would not.
Amendment No. 114 proposes that chairmen of REPACs should be elected by the other members. I think it is right that the chairman should be a ministerial appointment. These advisory committees will be important and influential bodies. The Secretary of State, in appointing a person to take on that role, will be under a duty to have regard to the need for appointing someone with relevant experience and expertise, and will be answerable to Parliament for the appointments he makes. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall not detain the Committee at this hour. These are important points, and it is sad that we have had to debate them in a ridiculously short time. I shall reflect upon what my noble friend has said, but we shall want to return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 121 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Environment protection advisory committees]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworthmoved Amendment No. 122:
Page 123, line 28, at end insert:
("() make provision for inclusion on the advisory committee of a person who has experience in, or knowledge of, the waste management industry.").
850
The noble Lord said: This is a different argument from that I deployed when we discussed a similar matter on the first day of Committee. The last series of amendments which were discussed so briefly has thrown up a number of variations in the membership of the advisory committees. That is a point that I would have brought up. It seems to me that I can best serve the Committee by considering what my noble friend the Minister said in relation to the other amendments relating to membership, set that against what I am seeking in the amendment, and come back at a later stage. Upon that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Regional and local fisheries advisory committees]:
Lord Greenwayhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 123:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause:
("Regional and local fisheries, recreation and navigation committees
13.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Agency—

(a) to establish and maintain fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees;

(b) to consult those committees as to the manner in which the Agency is to carry out its functions relating to fisheries, recreation and navigation; and

(c) to consider any representations made to it by those committees (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (b) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Agency carries out those functions.

(2) (a) Each fisheries, recreation and navigation committee shall consist of—

(i) persons who appear to the Agency to be interested in salmon fisheries, trout fisheries, freshwater fisheries or eel fisheries;

(ii) persons who appear to the Agency to have knowledge of recreation interests; and

(iii) persons who appear to the Agency to have knowledge of navigation interests.

(b) The members of fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees shall not be members of the Agency.
(3) The duty to establish and maintain fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees imposed by subsection (1) above is a duty to establish and maintain—

(a) a regional fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committee for each region of England and Wales; and

(b) such local fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees as the Agency considers necessary to represent fisheries, recreation and navigation interests in the different parts of each region;

and it shall be the duty of the Agency in determining the regions for which regional committees are established and maintained under this section to ensure that one of those regions consists (apart from territorial waters) wholly or mainly of, or of most of, Wales.
(4) If the Agency, with the consent of the Ministers, so determines, it shall also be under a duty to consult the fisheries, recreation and navigation committees, or such of them as may be specified or described in the determination, as to—

(a) the manner in which it is to perform its duties under or by virtue of such of the enactments relating to conservation as may be the subject of the determination, or

851

(b) such matters relating to conservation as may be the subject of the determination.

(5) Where, by virtue of subsection (4) above, the Agency is under a duty to consult those committees or any of them, there may be included among the members of the committees in question persons who are not members of the Agency but who appear to it to be interested in matters—

(a) likely to be affected by the manner in which it performs the duties to which the determination in question relates, or

(b) which are the subject of the determination, if the Ministers consent to the inclusion of persons of that description.

(6) There shall be paid by the Agency—

(a) to the chairman of any regional or local fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committee established and maintained under this section such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances; and

(b) to any other members of that committee such sums by way of reimbursement (whether in whole or in part) for loss of remuneration, for travelling expenses or for any other out-of-pocket expenses,

as may, with the consent of the Treasury, be determined by one of the Ministers.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not move the amendment, and so I do not need to withdraw it officially. But on the basis of what I said previously, and, subject to the agreement of the Minister and my noble friend Lord Moran, I should like to discuss this matter with him and reserve the right to bring it forward at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Regional flood defence committees]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 15, line 12, leave out ("existing") and insert ("old").
The noble Viscount said: I can save the time of the Committee by saying that Amendments Nos. 124 to 127 are of a minor technical nature. I beg to move.
852
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Local flood defence schemes and local flood defence committees]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendment No. 125:
Page 18, line 12, leave out ("date on which this section comes into force") and insert ("transfer date").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Composition of local flood defence committees]:
Viscount Ullswatermoved Amendments Nos. 126 and 127:
Page 19, line 41, leave out ("a regional flood defence") and insert ("an old regional").
Page 20, line 8, at end insert:
("(9) In this section "old regional committee" means a regional flood defence committee for the purposes of section 9 of the 1991 Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Schedule 5 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past ten o'clock.