Lords Sitting of 2 March 1995

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Child Welfare: UN Report
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they have made to the United Nations report criticising government policy with regard to the rights and welfare of children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there is no obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child for the United Kingdom Government to respond to the observations of the United Nations committee, and we have no plans to do so.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it is a most disturbing one. The report of the United Nations children's committee, in an examination of 35 other countries as well as ours, drew attention both to the good things the Government have done—in respect, for example, of adoption policy—and also to things which disturbed it, in particular secure provision for children and some aspects of the treatment of immigrant and ethnic minority children. Will the Minister reconsider what she has told the House? It is a matter which I should have thought the two Houses of Parliament and non-governmental organisations had every right to discuss in the interests of the children of this country.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are waiting to see the record of the sessions of the committee. Although part of the record is available, it is not yet forthcoming in its entirety. When we have seen the whole record, we shall consider whether to place a copy in the Library.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the purpose of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and of the committee set up under it, is to improve the conditions and prospects of children throughout the world? Does the Minister further agree that it is the intention of the committee to engage in constructive dialogue, not negative criticism, and that some of the newspaper reports about the committee's activities in relation to this country appear to be somewhat unbalanced? Therefore, will the Minister please reconsider the matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is for that very reason that we wish to await the full record before we decide what to do with the results. We believe that the committee was not totally fair in the way it conducted its review. In fact, members of the committee did not
1578
visit this country prior to producing the report. They took evidence from the Government on a Tuesday and a Wednesday morning and published their report on the Friday, having spent the Wednesday afternoon listening to further evidence from another country. We think that it would be fair if we published all the proceedings and not just the report from the committee.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I have one particular question for my noble friend the Minister. Will she satisfy herself that it is in order, and within the obligations that we have voluntarily undertaken internationally, for girls aged 12 to 14 to be held in secure custody in the same institutions as boys of the same age? I understand that that is the position in our proposed secure training centres.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not aware of the relevant facts. However, I shall certainly look into the matter and refer back to my noble friend.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although certain of the criticisms may be out of place, some are of fundamental importance? I have in mind the allegation of breaches of the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the reference to the number of children in poverty; and the reference to the age of criminality. When the time comes to respond to the report, will the Minister confirm that it will be accorded the gravity that a reply to the UN's report deserves?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the issues the committee was examining included the plight of street children, child victims of drug-related terrorism, child labour in mines, social cleansing campaigns, and arbitrary arrest. Our children in this country have a better start to life than they have ever had. We have almost eradicated childhood diseases. Moreover, there are fewer children in care and of those who are, more are cared for within a family—either adopted or fostered. We have the Children Act which safeguards the rights of children while parents now have more choice over their children's education and are involved in schools. I believe that our children have never had it so good. They are taller, they are fitter, and they are better educated. I really think that the committee should have taken those factors into account.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, despite the criticisms made of the United Nations report, issues have nonetheless been raised concerning the proposed secure training units. Will Her Majesty's Government reconsider the creation of such units in favour of community alternatives, some of which have proven to be effective?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the issue has been widely debated in both Houses of Parliament. We have come to our conclusions. It is a last resort for those children. Within the training centres, the children will receive advice and help with discipline, education, health and hygiene—all those aspects of life which are

1579
usually instilled by parents when bringing up their children but which such children have lost out on. It is right that they should receive the help we can give them.
Noble Lords: Front Bench!
Lord Rea: My Lords, the report of the United Nations committee on the rights of the child, in response to the Government's report on the children's convention, is critical of the Government, but it also offers some constructive suggestions covering a very wide area—from the reduction of child poverty, as discussed in yesterday's debate, to the reform of the child judicial system, not simply restricted to secure centres. Can we expect an equally constructive response from the Government to this authoritative document? I agree that we have to await the full report. Can we expect the Government to respond to it constructively? Is the noble Baroness aware that the report suggests that its contents be brought before Parliament and that the suggestions for action be followed by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no obligation to do so. It is interesting to see the number of nations who send people to this country to consider the welfare we provide for our children, the protection we give them, and the care we give them. They beat a path to our door to see how the Children Act operates. We are the world leaders in the field.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even those of us who share my noble friend's anxiety about secure training orders regard the provisions of the Children Act 1989 as an impeccable credential of the status the Government give to children in society, endorsed now by the Children (Scotland) Bill? Does she agree that we can hold our heads up high in the international community?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I share his views.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if the Government's case is so strong, why does the noble Baroness feel that the report cannot be put before Parliament and the non-governmental organisations, as it suggests in its final paragraph?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have explained that there are two sides to this debate. We want to put both sides. When we have had the results of the interviews that took place, where the Government gave evidence, we shall be prepared to reconsider our view.

War Widows' Pensions
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, they will arrange for a substantial increase in war widows' pensions.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government have always recognised the special sacrifice made by war widows. The majority of World War II war widows now receive a totally tax-free pension of almost £140 per week, which is more than two-and-a-half times a national insurance widow's pension. Bearing this and the other unique concessions which are available to war widows in mind, we do not consider that a substantial increase in war widows' pensions can be justified.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend has said as to the steps that successive Ministers have taken to improve the war pension, but, if we are to have a sincere commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, surely there are few better ways of doing this than by adding something to the income of those who made the greatest sacrifice of all—the loss of a husband in defence of his country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not in any way dissent from my noble friend's sentiments, but we did not need to wait until this 50th anniversary before doing something very special, which is what we did in 1990 when we increased war widows' pensions by £40 a week, which is equivalent to 53 per cent. That was a far better signal of our appreciation than would be given by doing something in this special year.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while I appreciate the Minister's interest and his endeavours to help the Royal British Legion—we are grateful for that—does he not agree that on occasions there are special cases and special circumstances which require special examination? If such instances should arise, would the Minister at least be prepared to examine them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's kind remarks as regards the various meetings I had with the Royal British Legion. Of course one has to look not just at war widows' pensions but at the whole field of war pensioners, including those men who have been left severely disabled. We should not lose sight of them. Of course we look for ways of improving the situation both for war widows and war pensioners. As I have already explained to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we took a special step in 1990.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that in this year of all years there is no positive gesture the Government can make to improve the lot of war widows, many of whom, because of the anomalous way that pensions are paid in practice, are suffering great deprivation in the evening of their life? Does he not agree that money being spent, however wisely and sensibly, on commemoration and celebration in May and in August will be that much less acceptable to the veterans if they think that the widows of those who made all this possible are still suffering great hardship?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble and gallant Lord makes about this special year and about the celebrations and remembrances we shall have of events 50 years ago.

1581
However, I return to my point that five years ago we appreciated the need of pre-1973 war widows and took the step then of increasing their pension of £74.45 by an additional £40 a week. That was a significant step. I believe that it is more important to look at what we do, not when we do it.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, can my noble friend not show a little compassion? While we understand that it may not be possible to increase the pension received during the course of the year, could the day of celebration be marked by giving a lump sum to war widows? I do not mean the equivalent of the £10 Christmas bonus given to ordinary pensioners, but something substantial like £500.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said earlier in answer to a previous question, there are more people involved than war widows. There are war pensioners and people such as the limbless who are looked after by BLESMA and the like. We should not lose sight of them. We have to try to make sure that whatever we do in this field is fair to all the people to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we welcomed the increase in 1990 and we recall the terrific campaign throughout the country that led up to that increase on behalf of war widows? He mentioned other means that might be adopted in this respect. On this 50th anniversary will he look at the possibility of index linking the pensions of thousands of ex-servicemen who are still receiving a pittance of a pension instead of the index-linked pension to which they are entitled?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure to what the noble Lord refers. War widows' pensions and other pensions paid to war pensioners are already index linked with prices in exactly the same way as many other benefits.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, does not the Minister think that for war widows who remarry it would be sensible to guarantee the automatic restoration of the DSS war widows pension on second bereavement, thereby encouraging war widows to remarry and thus saving the DSS large sums of money?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, saving the DSS large sums of money appeals to me greatly. However, spending more money does not seem to be the way to save money. I suspect that the noble Lord's proposal, which he also put forward in the debate that we had on this subject, would increase our expenditure in this regard. I explained to him on that occasion why the war widows' pension is applied as it is. If widows remarry they obviously cease to be widows, and one assumes that their second husbands have made some provision for their retirement and any second widowhood.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was not only servicemen who were killed by enemy action but many others, including merchant seamen, lifeboatmen, people working in the ARP (who
1582
suffered greatly in the Battle of Britain) and firemen? Does he agree that if there is to be recognition, it would be difficult to draw the line?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. There is special provision for some of the categories mentioned, but there are many others who suffered in the war in various ways who do not come into any of the special categories. That does not take away in any way from the special regard in which we hold war widows and which is clear in the very much larger widows' pension we give to war widows than to any other widows.

M.25: Junctions 12 and 15
3.23 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to proceed with their plans for link roads between junctions 12 and 15 of the M.25; and, if so, what are their plans for a public inquiry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, draft orders for the further improvement of the M.25 between junctions 12 and 15 were published in April 1994. An announcement on the date of the public inquiry will be made in due course.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, oh dear! I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware, as obviously he must be, that these proposals have been around now for three years and a succession of Ministers have stood at that Dispatch Box telling us that they were on the point of fixing a date for an inquiry, but nothing has happened? Do the Government appreciate that although, as I understand it, houses on the direct line of the route have been acquired by the department and compensation paid, the Government have managed to impose a prolonged planning blight on the whole of the immediately surrounding neighbourhood? Would it not be a much better idea to abandon this very expensive project, given all the complications, noise, pollution (which should appeal particularly to the Minister) and environmental damage that would result and the likelihood that the proposal would not solve the problem anyway?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I recognise the anxiety arising from the long period that the process has taken. That is why we seek to make an announcement as soon as possible.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the delay in making the announcement may be ascribed to some other reasons? For example, does the delay reflect the cost of the proposal and its low net present value, as demonstrated by some of the work done by Surrey County Council which was delivered to the Department of Transport and which has stimulated the department to do some similar modelling of its own? Does the delay reflect the fact that the recent SACTRA report indicates that the

1583
proposals are misguided in purpose and inadequate as to the processes that are undertaken, in particular the process of the environmental assessment? Or are the Government impressed by the high level of political opposition to the proposals? Or is the delay due to all three of those reasons?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the draft orders were laid last April. There has been some delay. There has been considerable public response. We have received about 12,000 objections since that time. Last July the then Minister for Roads announced that he wished to give more time to those who sought to make an objection to the proposal. That time has been given and we seek to make an announcement as soon as possible.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, are we not back on the old treadmill? The M.25 was going to solve all the problems in that area. It was an extremely expensive road. Now we find that it is being extended and an extra lane built. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested that another way should be considered in view of the discomfort and economic disadvantage caused to local people whose houses have been blighted. Has consideration been given, for instance, to the extension of the Piccadilly Line, which would not be very far and which would be a great deal cheaper and take a large number of commuters off that road.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the M.25 is an extremely important part of our trunk road network. We have a severe problem now. It is envisaged that that problem will become significantly worse with the increase in traffic rates. The simple fact is that we need extra capacity. More investment in public transport will have an effect on that problem but it will not significantly reduce the demand for extra capacity on that piece of road.

European Union: Acquired Rights Directive
3.28 pm.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they are having with other European Union governments with a view to lessening the legal safeguards for employees covered by the EU acquired rights directive.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, Ministers and government officials have had a number of constructive discussions with representatives of other member states, both before and after the publication by the European Commission in September last year of its proposal to repeal the 1977 acquired rights directive and to replace it by a new one. Those discussions have been aimed at securing agreement on the scope of the directive, not on reducing the rights provided where it applies.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he not agree that it is
1584
more than mildly ironic that at a time when there is such substantial public concern about the pay settlements for directors of public utilities, a concern which has also been expressed by the Prime Minister, the Government are applying their minds to trying to reduce the employment prospects, wages and working conditions of people who are involved in market testing? Does that not seem wholly unacceptable?
Secondly, would the Minister like to comment on the letter which was published in the Financial Times on Tuesday of this week from Mr. Portillo, the Secretary of State, who said that the Government must avoid any public statements on this issue which would be reported to the Commission and others? Can the noble Lord explain why there is such a desire for secrecy by Ministers on this particular question? I am sure that the House will be extremely interested in his reply.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have overlooked the fact that the purpose behind the move to contract out was to improve services and to reduce expenditure. That does not necessarily mean that overall jobs will be lost. On the contrary, jobs will be gained. In the past 12 months we have seen unemployment drop by something like 400,000.
The noble Lord referred to a piece in the Financial Times published earlier this week which makes certain suggestions about the manner in which the Government are conducting negotiations at European level. Needless to say we do not divulge the tactics which we employ in those negotiations. To do so would reduce the efficacy of our activities and as a result we might achieve a less good deal for the British people than we would otherwise manage to do.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, one can hardly open a newspaper without reading about yet another takeover in prospect—Dillons, not to mention Barings. Is it not deplorable that at a time of enormous insecurity in the labour market, the impression should be given that the Government seek to water down what already exists in the acquired rights directive? Should we not seek to strengthen those guarantees to workers in such situations? It is hardly surprising—is it not?—that in present circumstances there is no feelgood factor, because people are far too insecure.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important to bear in mind that the proposals to change the acquired rights directive emanate from the European Commission. The European Commission believes that the present legislation is inappropriate, not merely because it is badly drafted—I am sure that the House will agree on that—but also because the way in which it is interpreted by the European Court of Justice goes far beyond the intention at the time that it came into effect in 1977. Experts have been called in by the Commission. The balance of opinion is that it is appropriate to reduce its scope. We on these Benches also share that view. That is why we support the European Commission in its endeavours.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has been very helpful on this Question this afternoon. I ask him to recall another phrase from the letter of Mr. Portillo, which states,
"There is undoubtedly some suspicion of the UK's motives".
He indicates that there would be real danger if it were thought that the United Kingdom was the leading member state which wanted revision of the acquired rights directive. Is that not an extraordinarily interesting indication of the Government's position on general European issues?
Quite apart from that, does the noble Lord also agree that the reduction of unemployment to which he referred has absolutely nothing to do with the acquired rights directive, which is still in existence? There could not have been the remotest relationship between the acquired rights directive and the reduction of unemployment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained in an earlier answer, it is not the Government's policy to elaborate on the tactics that they are adopting in European negotiations. The noble Lord refers to the article in the Financial Times. I do not propose to comment further on it.
On the specific points he makes about the acquired rights directive, the important point is this. We believe that the policy contained in the directive is not in the best interests of this country. That is why we wish to see the scope of the legislation reduced. We take the view that the directive is not appropriate because we believe that the approach to labour market flexibility which we have adopted in this country—it is to some extent at variance with the approach shared elsewhere in the European Union—is in our people's interest and has led to the decrease in unemployment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to whether a change in the directive will be achieved by a qualified majority vote or does the change require unanimity? If the former, will he state what other countries support the British Government's position?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the proposal is brought forward under Article 100 of the treaty, which requires unanimity. We believe that there is a very good chance of this proposal proceeding.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, nicely illustrate the reason why the feelgood factor is elusive? The reason is that politicians so often refer to closures and danger, and never to such factors as the greatest reduction in unemployment for many decades and the fact that employment in manufacturing is going up for the first time since the last war.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend makes a pertinent comment. The feelgood factor depends upon a successful economy; and our economy is becoming more successful every day.

Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Special Public Bill Committee on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]:

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Brightman (Chairman),

L. Butterworth,

L. Clark of Kempston,

V. Colville of Culross,

B. Darcy (de Knayth),

B. David,

L. Kingsland,

L. Mackay of Clashfern (L. Chancellor),

L. Meston;

and that the Committee do meet this day at five o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Relevant authorities to define requirements of environmental protection
.—(1) It shall be the duty of each relevant authority to integrate requirements for environmental protection into the definition of its policies and plans and into the performance of its functions under any enactment.
(2) For the purpose of this section "relevant authority" means—

(a) any Minister of the Crown,

(b) any public body,

(c) any statutory undertaker, or

(d) any person holding public office.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment introduces a key issue which is currently missing from this otherwise welcome Bill: a commitment to advance the cause of the environment across the activities of Government as a whole. It does so by requiring Ministers and government departments, public bodies, office holders and statutory undertakers to integrate the environment into their decision making.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening at this stage. Many Members of this House were walking between the noble Lord who spoke and the Woolsack. That is not the convention of this House. I was therefore unable to hear the noble Lord's original introduction. I should be most grateful if he could start again.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention for which I am grateful. I shall start again.
The amendment introduces a key issue which is currently missing from this otherwise welcome Bill: a commitment to advance the cause of the environment across the activities of government as a whole. It does so by requiring Ministers, government departments, public bodies, office holders and statutory undertakers to integrate the environment into their decision making.
The amendment stems from an earlier amendment which I introduced at Committee stage. It triggered a useful debate. I readily concede that my earlier amendment as drafted did not command universal support although its objective was widely welcomed. It was felt—I believe that I read the mood of the House correctly—to be too ambitious. Perhaps I was too optimistic in requiring Ministers and others to further the protection of the environment wherever possible while they carry out their statutory purposes.
I have therefore brought back for consideration by the House a more modest and realistic amendment based on the well established and accepted principle of environmental integration. In layman's language, it simply means making sure that the environment is properly dealt with in all decisions.
The effect of my amendment would be to raise the profile of the environment across Whitehall, local authorities and public bodies, and to ensure that it was taken fully into account in all decisions and implementations. It would not result in the environment overriding all other factors. Rather it would ensure that the environmental implications of decisions were assessed, considered and taken into account before a decision was made. There can be little disagreement with this. I believe that it is a good thing and one which should not be unduly controversial since the Government have already said that they would do precisely that in their 1990 White Paper on the environment and again in the 1994 national sustainability strategy.
Integration is a rather ugly buzz word which is fashionable at the moment. I make no apologies for using it because the Government themselves are keen on the concept. It is even included in the Treaty on European Union in wording which my amendment reflects. The amendment would have widespread and obvious application where there are environmental conflicts or difficult issues to be addressed; for example, in the fields of transport, energy or agriculture. It would also be useful in policy areas where the environmental impacts are not immediate or obvious but are still important; for example, the environmental impacts of changes in health or education service provision. Effective environmental integration reduces conflict and can save time and money; it is worth doing.
Responding to my earlier amendment, the Minister said that,
"one of the central themes of the Government's approach to sustainable development is that it can be achieved only through the involvement of all parts of government".—[Official Report, 17/1/95; col. 542.]
1588
Moreover, he did not rule out the possibility of a positive response if I were able to come up with an amendment which more accurately reflected the Government's existing policy commitments in the field. It is with the hope of such a positive reaction in mind that I beg to move my amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, ever since Rio and their signature to the treaty the Government have been pursuing a policy of trying to integrate sustainable development and protection of the environment across the board. Your Lordships' Committee on Sustainable Development heard last week from the Secretary of State for the Environment very heartening evidence of the progress of the work of green Ministers, of reports and of developments right across departments of state.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will carry on and reinforce the message of what the Government are doing. I am sure that they will feel they can accept it. We on these Benches support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I hope very much that the Government will feel that the amendment is not controversial. It is the Government's stated aim which has now been translated into parliamentary language, as I understand it, by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. The amendment is in keeping with the Rio Declaration; it simply states the view which the noble Viscount set out and I, for my party, set out on Second Reading a long timeago, before Christmas. It is that we must make the environment central to all government policy-making.
Later in the Bill we shall see how the proposal can be translated into terms applying to the private sector, but the amendment deals with the public sector. We believe that it is for the public sector to set a proper example to the private sector. We therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Lord Moran: My Lords, at Second Reading I argued that the environment agency should perhaps be given clearer duties to improve environmental protection. The amendment goes some way to achieving that. Consequently, I hope that it can be accepted. I support it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have two reasons for being broadly sympathetic towards the amendment. The first is that, like other noble Lords, I am a keen conservationist. The second reason is that I am one of those who believes that guidance should be given in Acts of Parliament stating as a matter of broad principle the purpose of the Act and the objectives it should attain. That is another way of expressing the purpose.
However, it would be wrong to assume that the new clause aims at something which is neglected by other clauses of the Bill. It overlaps to a considerable extent Clauses 4 to 10 and Clause 12. Those clauses are, however, limited to the functions of the agency and the effect of the work which the agency does in relation to specific named matters. The provisions do not express, as the new clause would, a broad environmental purpose.

1589
I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Ullswater says. I shall not commit myself to voting one way or another, or to abstaining. I believe that such a broad statement of purpose can be valuable and I hope that it will receive a sympathetic reception from the Government.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am reluctant to join the debate; I shall do so briefly. If we were in Committee I should be happier because I ask for clarification and I doubt whether I shall receive it. While I appreciate the merits of what my noble friend proposes and understand what he intends, I am not sure that the process of integrating a requirement into a function can be analysed in legal terms. I do not know what it would mean in law. Therefore, I hope that if my noble friend were tempted to accept the amendment, he would be careful to tell noble Lords what it would mean because I suspect that it is flawed.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment for almost the reason my noble friend Lord Elton has just given. As I read the amendment, it puts into the Bill what is already in the Long Title. I draw your Lordships' attention to the part of the title which states,
"to make further provision for … the conservation or enhancement of the environment".
As I see it, that is what the amendment is intended to ensure. It is to enable this excellent Bill to take a major step forward and to bring the environmental dimension into a whole range of government decisions.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Norrie said, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee. He has come back with a slightly different approach. I appreciate that he has tried to meet some of the objections I put forward to his original amendment, but I still do not believe that his proposal would work.
The Government appreciate that environmental protection should not be a concern or a responsibility only of environment and territorial Ministers. One of the central themes of our approach to sustainable development and the arrangements we have made to implement our policies and take forward our strategy is that it involves everybody—all parts of government, all sections of society. I am more than happy to agree that environmental considerations should generally be taken into account by Ministers, other public office-holders, public bodies and statutory undertakers in the course of their normal work. But my noble friend's amendment seeks to place a duty on those people and organisations to integrate requirements for environmental protection into definition of their policies and plans and into the performance of their functions. I do not believe that that is either appropriate or workable.
Good government and good policy-making and implementation in the public sector generally require the balancing of needs for many different desirable policy objectives and finding ways of delivering those which provide the optimum advantage. To single out one
1590
particular policy objective and place the entire public sector under a statutory requirement to integrate this into the definition of all its policies, plans and functions risks upsetting that balance. It is difficult to see how a statutory requirement such as is proposed here cannot have a knock-on effect on the need for bodies also to integrate the requirements of equally important policy objectives such as those relating to health and safety, economic and social well-being, national security and so on. It would also seem to take away some of the necessary discretion which bodies must be able to exercise in the way they make and carry out their decisions. It is surely for them to decide which policy objectives need to be taken into account and with what weight in any particular case.
Moreover, the proposal is too wide and, in its attempt to cover everything, draws into the net many decisions where integration of environmental protection would be simply irrelevant. To take a simple example, which I believe would explain the concern of my noble friend Lord Elton, a local authority, in drawing up the staffing structure for its education department, would seem to be put under a duty to integrate requirements for environmental protection into the definition of that staffing policy. That would not seem to make much sense.
I believe that my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I are not in disagreement about the basic principle of the benefits of ensuring that environmental considerations are properly taken into account throughout government and the public sector more widely where appropriate. But I cannot agree that anything practical will be achieved by imposing an overall duty to integrate requirements for environmental protection into the policy and performance of every aspect of government.
I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he confirm for his noble friend Lord Elton that the wording of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nome, is in fact the wording of Article 130r of the revised Treaty of Rome?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I would not doubt the words of the noble Lord.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I have to remain disappointed. I hope that he will take into account also what my noble friend Lord Marlesford said—basically, that the Bill does not yet live up to its Long Title.
This is clearly not the time to press the case. I believe that constructive dialogue on this issue is the best way forward. Therefore, if I may, I shall seek to discuss the purpose behind my amendment again with the Minister and explore further exactly what difficulties he sees and whether we can find a way round them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble lords: No!
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E

Blackstone, B.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Bridges, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Methuen, L

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L

Cranbrook, E.

Moran, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mulley, L.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Norrie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkender, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Roskill L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Shepherd, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Strafford, E

Gregson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walpole, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Borth wick, L.

Addison, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ailsa, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Alexander of Tunis, E

Burnham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterworth, L.

Annaly.L

Caithness, E

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Blaker, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Blatch, B.

Chesham, L.

Blyth, L.

Clanwilliam, E

Boardman, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

1592

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

McConnell, L.

Cox, B.

Merrivale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mersey, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Mills, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Monk Bretton, L

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Davidson, V.

Morris, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Effingham, E

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Faithfull. B.

Northbourne, L.

Flather, B.

Northesk, E

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orkney, E

Fraser of Kilmorack, L

Oxfuird, V.

Gainford, L.

Palmer, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gisborough, L

Pender, L

Greenway, L

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Quinton, L.

Halsbury, E

Rawlings, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Rees, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Renwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hood, V.

Rodney, L

Hooper, B.

Romney, E

Howe, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Salisbury, M.

Ilchester, E

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sandys, L.

Killearn, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kintore, E.

Shannon, E

Kitchener, E

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Knollys, V.

St Davids, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L

Lauderdale, E

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stockton, E

Lindsay, E

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Sudeley, L

Lucas, L.

Swansea, L.

Lyell, L.

Terrington, L.

Lytton, E

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ullswater, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marsh, L.

Weatherill, L.

May, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 [The Environment Agency]:
4.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 2, I should say that it should read:
"Page 1, line 12, after ("first Agency") insert"—
and the words which follow.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, after ("first Agency") insert ("or, in Welsh, Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whom I know to be an excellent Gaelic speaker, for his correction of the amendment.
The intention of the amendment is very simple. It is to provide for the England and Wales agency as a public body a name which has a Welsh language version. That is in accordance with the Welsh Language Act passed by this House. I state my interest as chairman of the statutory board charged with implementing that piece of legislation.
The issue was raised earlier at Committee stage (Official Report, 31/1/95; cols. 1418–20), when the noble Viscount responded. He indicated that full consideration will be given to the position of the agency under Section 6 of the Welsh Language Act and its designation as a public body.
However, I move this amendment to raise the specific question, and indeed the general principle, of how the Government intend to treat public bodies which are now being created following the establishment of the new principle of treating Welsh and English on the basis of equality, as set out in the Welsh Language Act; to deal with the subsequent requirement for all public bodies in Wales to implement that principle where reasonable and practicable in the circumstances, taking into account the guidance and advice given by the board in its recent draft guidelines—which it is to be hoped will come before this House later this year—that public bodies should have a distinctive corporate image in Wales where they provide a service which is bilingual for the people in Wales. That is particularly important in the case of this agency. Having turned down one of the original possibilities of establishing an environment agency for Wales on the basis of SEPA in Scotland, there is a danger that this agency may not be seen to be fulfilling its obligation to the public in Wales if from the start it does not adopt policies in tune with both the culture and the environment of the Principality.
The further principle applies to all public bodies which will come into existence from now on to serve the people of Wales. There are a number of ways in which the Government can bring about conformity with the Welsh Language Act. One way is to use Section 25 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. However, it seems to me that, rather than having to make orders to include public bodies under the terms of that Act, a much simpler exercise would be to ensure that every new body created that could come under the terms of that Act is so designated from the start as a bilingual organisation in terms of name. That could be done through miscellaneous provisions in the legislation, or alternatively in the way that I suggest in this amendment; namely, that the name of the body corporate is included in the legislation.
There is a precedent for that in the Welsh Language Act itself which established both the English language name and the Welsh language name in legislation; and
1594
also precedent in the Local Government (Wales) Act, which established names in Welsh and English for the new unitary authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said. I shall be interested to hear the Government's guidance on the matter. I had not given much thought to the point, but I had assumed that the whole arrangement was satisfactorily covered by the Welsh Language Act and there would be a set of arrangements in place. But the noble Lord reminded the House that the Welsh name has been included in previous legislation and therefore I can see no grounds in principle for it not to be done on this occasion.
I rise at this moment partly to say that I hope that we shall not become too fixed on this particular name. I could have tabled an amendment in this House but I hope that in another place someone will put down an amendment to change the name to "Authority". I know that that is wished and desired by my noble friend Lord De Ramsey who has discussed the matter with me and shares my view that that would be a much more effective name for this organisation. I am simply taking this opportunity to signal that, in my view, the Authority would be a better name. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will tell us in due course what the appropriate Welsh version of that would be.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am a little puzzled by the amendment. I sympathise enormously with the noble Lord. Welsh is a very beautiful language which should be extensively supported. However, I feel that the amendment goes a little too far in asking that certain sections of Bills should also be printed in the Welsh language. We could have every Bill with a Welsh alternative.
It may well be that when the Bill becomes an Act it might be printed in the Welsh language. But why stop at the Welsh language? Why not in the Gaelic language and so on? An all-embracing Bill should be in the "British" tongue. I should not like to set a precedent but perhaps in a Bill specially relevant to Wales it would carry a more valid point.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, is to confer a Welsh name on the England and Wales agency which the agency could use as appropriate to its Welsh region. I agree fully that the agency should be given a Welsh name. However, as the noble Lord himself admitted, powers exist under Section 25 of the Welsh Language Act 1993 to confer Welsh names on public bodies by order. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will confer a Welsh name on the agency in that way. There is no need for that to be done through primary legislation and I ask the noble Lord, therefore, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, before I accede to that request I should like to respond briefly and to put on record the point of principle that in my view it is acceptable in this House that we produce legislation in English as the working language. However, there should be no objection to the inclusion of proper names for

1595
bodies or organisations on the face of Bills, as we have done in other cases, particularly in relation to the Local Government (Wales) Act.
It is not the intention of this amendment or any other to change the language of this House or of Parliament and certainly not the intention to effect any specific change on the face of legislation. The amendment seeks to conform with what will be the legal case once the order is made by the Secretary of State in terms of the Welsh Language Act. I do not see why that cannot be done as a proper name for a public body on the face of primary legislation. The amendment relates to that point of principle.
It seems to me that it is much simpler, either at this stage of the Bill or later under miscellaneous provisions when reference is made to all other kinds of legislation, that reference should be made in primary legislation to the Welsh language title. That is particularly appropriate for a public body which functions for England and Wales as a unit and which has a Welsh advisory committee. Therefore at a later stage, when we discuss miscellaneous provisions at the end of the Bill, at Report stage, at Third Reading, or in another place, perhaps the Government will consider whether it is appropriate, as a matter of principle where an agency is an England and Wales agency, to provide a bilingual name from the start rather than to follow this process whereby the Secretary of State will be continually making orders in reference to public bodies.
I also have much sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, regarding the names "Awdurdod yr Amgylchedd" or "yr Awdurdod Amgylchedd". Both sound fine to me. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("for the purpose of carrying") and insert ("whose objective shall be to conserve and regenerate the environment, and which shall carry").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret that I can only move this amendment in English. Amendment No. 3 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 4, 20 and, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Amendment No. 22. At this point I shall deal only with Amendment No. 3. The purpose of Amendment No. 22 can best be dealt with when we debate the proposed new Clause 4.
I hesitated over the word "purpose" because I felt it was necessary to come to today's debate armed with definitions of the terms "objective", "aim", "purpose" and "functions". We had some difficulty in distinguishing between them at the last stage of the Bill. However, there was a large degree of consensus that, whether one described it as an "objective", an "aim" or a "purpose", certainly the underlying thrust, the fundamental objective of the agency should be spelt out early on in the Bill. It is for that reason that I tabled Amendment No. 3.
I hope that your Lordships will understand that it is not as ambitious a proposal as may appear at first sight. The objective is to,
1596
"conserve and regenerate the environment".
I am not seeking to impose additional responsibilities or additional functions on the agency over and above those provided by the Bill, but merely to set the proper context for the work that the agency is to do; in other words, to spell out the purpose underlying its functions.
I am not wedded to the term "conserve and regenerate"; equally it could be "protect and enhance". I chose a term which suggests more than simply accepting the status quo in order to reflect anxieties expressed by many noble Lords at the Committee stage that the agency should set its sights higher than merely trying to ensure that matters do not get worse environmentally speaking and, if necessary, slowly, but I hope surely, to achieve improvement.
At the Committee stage, in responding to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which had a similar purpose, the Minister said that he was concerned about,
"the risk of attempting to encompass within a few select words the full range of functions of the environment agency".
I have not sought to do that; I have not attempted to describe the range of functions. I am seeking to spell out the purpose underlying those functions. The Minister also said that,
"Any attempt to write overriding statutory functions and purposes on top of those existing provision:: risks creating duplication or conflict".—[Official Report, 17/1/95; col. 548.]
Again, I assure your Lordships that that is not the thrust of Amendment No. 3. The Minister may say that the provisions of the proposed new Clause 4 effectively deal with the point. I believe that they do not. That is the reason I have not spoken to Amendment No. 22. The new clause, to which we shall come in due course, makes the aim of the agency subordinate to its functions. I believe that that is the wrong way round. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, bearing in mind the way in which the amendments are grouped, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 20 and 24, which I regard as being largely subsumed by Amendment No. 28 which has been tabled by the Government and relates to the new Clause 4. My primary objective was to ensure that the agency had an overall duty to exercise its powers to protect and enhance the environment. However, the Government have gone a good deal of the way—in fact nearly all the way—that I sought to go with my amendment, which I tabled before my noble friend tabled his. I had hoped that they would be grouped together but unfortunately they were not.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, while accepting that the government amendments relating to Clause 4—which arrived rather late—cover many of the points that we wished to be covered under Clause 1, my reason for supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the other amendments in the group, is that without a clear purpose for the agency in Clause 1, there is a certain hollowness about it; that

1597
is, we appear to be setting up an agency to do a collection of functions, but we are not giving the agency a clear purpose.
Although the government amendments to Clause 4, under the guidance provisions, may cover the functions that we wish to see the agency carrying out, there is something lacking in Clause 4. There is a certain lack of definition regarding the purpose of the agency. It would provide a bold introduction to the Bill if the agency's purpose was clearly laid out in Clause 1. Therefore on balance I continue to prefer that the purpose of the agency should be contained in Clause 1 rather than in Clause 4, to which we will revert at a later stage when we discuss Amendment No. 28.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, this issue turns on words. There are several critical words to be considered. First, there is the difference between the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that of my noble friend Lord Marlesford as tabled, which he may or may not move in due course. Of the two I prefer the term, "protect and enhance". They are familiar words in the environmental world and we understand their meaning. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, introduced unnecessary complications in using terms that are not familiar to us and to legislation in general.
The Long Title of the Bill and the draft management statement clearly indicate that the agency will be set up to provide high quality environmental protection. I believe that the wording that is to be introduced by my noble friend on the Front Bench that,
"It shall be the principal aim of the Agency … to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, as to make the contribution towards",
may offer some hostages to fortune and complicate the system. I put it to my noble friend that it is and would be very much simpler to have a straightforward, precise and concise statement of duty in the fewest possible words right at the beginning of the Bill. I should very much like to see my noble friend the Minister consider the approach of my noble friend Lord Marlesford and thereby somewhat reduce the hazards and complications of the wording that he is about to propose in Amendment No. 28.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, my position is very close to that of my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. We shall run into some difficulties when we get to the Government's amendment and I sympathise with the idea that we should have a simple statement at the start of the Bill. The difficulty here is that we have two amendments which are flawed. My noble friend has spelt out—and I need not repeat what he said—the flaw in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is much more satisfactory to stick to the wording we have in the memorandum and in the Long Title. The trouble with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford is that he drops the words "whose objective shall be" and tells us that the agency,
"shall, in exercising any of its powers under any enactment, protect and enhance the environment".
1598
That may be impossible. When we are dealing with flood defences I can envisage circumstances where it might be absolutely essential to take some measure for the protection of life and property that does not actually enhance the environment. It is the kind of dilemma with which the NRA has had to deal over the years. What one needs is duties that are reconcilable. What needs to be done is to take the idea away and come back, as would be perfectly possible, with an amendment which combines the virtues of the more gentle introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with my noble friend's objectives. Then we would be getting very close to what we want.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Until Clause 4 and the Government's amendment are sorted out, Amendment No. 3 is extremely confusing. It uses the word "objective". I am not quite sure how that would relate to what is meant by "aim" in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause or "objectives" in subsection (2). I do not know which is subordinate to the other and so I end up being thoroughly confused. It would be better to get Clause 4 out of the way and come back to the point at a later stage, if necessary.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I am confused by the use of the word "enhance". To me, "enhance" means to enhance a quality. Why "enhance" seems to be used in this Bill to mean what I would call "improve" I do not quite see.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, put his finger on the problem. Trying to introduce an amendment such as this into Clause 1 of the Bill suffers from the difficulties to which he referred. I understand quite sincerely the desire of noble Lords to put up front what at Committee stage we called the strategic purpose. The attempt to put it in Clause 1 is quite legitimate. However, we have considered this carefully and I have brought forward the government amendment to Clause 4. I apologise to the House that it was at a rather later date than I would have wanted.
The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford would place the agency under a duty, in exercising any power, to protect and enhance the environment and would empower Ministers to give guidance with respect to its new duties. The first of the amendments is in many respects similar to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in Committee, but with the purpose extended from that of protecting the environment to protecting and enhancing the environment and limited to governing the exercise by the agency of its powers rather than its powers and duties.
When we debated that earlier amendment a number of noble Lords from all sides of the Chamber emphasised the need for some statement of the purposes of the agency on the face of the Bill, rather than leaving this solely as a matter for guidance. I listened carefully to those arguments and noted the broad acceptance of the idea even among those whose views differed as to what those purposes should be. That is why I have brought forward an amendment to include within the Bill a statement of the principal aims of the agency.

1599
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I drew attention to the dangers of attempting to encapsulate within a few words a complete statement of the purposes of the agency and the need to avoid possible inconsistencies between any such description in this Bill and the provisions of the existing legislation on which the agency will need to rely. I believe that the amendments which we are now considering illustrate those risks particularly well. Their effect would be to place the agency under a duty in every case to exercise its powers so as to protect and enhance the environment irrespective of the purposes for which the powers were originally enacted, the costs to itself and others that might result and the practicability of so doing.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell gave us an example of the difficulties. I shall give another example. The agency has powers in relation to navigation. In exercising those powers it is undoubtedly right that it should seek to avoid doing so in ways which are environmentally damaging. But that is very different from saying that powers which were there to promote the interests of navigation should be capable of being exercised only where they protect and enhance the environment, which would be highly restrictive. Similarly, the agency will have numerous powers designed to ensure that it can function effectively as a body but which are not directly concerned with protecting and enhancing the environment; for example, powers to levy charges. To limit the use of such powers to cases where they protected and enhanced the environment would in practice be highly damaging to the effective operation of the agency.
More generally, all the amendments suffer from seeking to require the agency to pursue environmental purposes divorced from consideration of the wider needs of society and the need to ensure that environmental protection is not pursued where the benefits would not justify the costs. I know that there is a siren argument which says that the agency should be given a purely environmental role, and the need for difficult decisions about how that might need to be constrained where action would be disproportionate or incompatible with the pursuit of sustainable development should be left as a matter for Ministers. But in practice an agency with such a remit would be largely incapable of independent and effective operation since under such an arrangement Ministers would necessarily become involved in the agency's day-to-day operations. The need to pursue environmental protection in the context of sustainable development, taking proper account of costs and benefits, is central to the Government's approach to ensuring responsible and effective environmental protection in which all parts of society can become involved.
I hope I have made plain that these amendments would in practice restrict the agency in unreasonable ways. I trust therefore that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for
1600
adding their analysis of what is not an easy matter. I continue to distinguish my proposal from what is contained in new Clause 4, under which the agency is to aim,
"in discharging its functions … to protect or enhance the environment".
I do not fully go along with the Minister in the example which he gave. I believe that my argument can be applied to examples which the noble Viscount may not have given. He said that the objective should not be part of the exercise of every power, if I understand him correctly. The noble Viscount used the example of charging. I believe that, taken together, the powers must work towards the thrust and the objective of the agency. For instance, as regards charging there would be enormous disappointment if all the agency did was to levy fees. The point of its charging is to enable it to implement the reason that it is being set up. In other words, the powers are separate but minor. They cannot be read as headline objectives of themselves: they are powers and not objectives and they facilitate.
As I said, I found the analysis extremely helpful. I accept that the amendment can stand improvement or even enhancement, if I may dare say that. It is still important and a pity that we have to address this matter before we get to the new Clause 4. We have to establish whether the objective which many noble Lords wish to see is spelt out at the head of the Bill. I propose to seek the opinion of the House. In doing so, I assure your Lordships that should this amendment be successful, I shall seek to improve it in conjunction with other noble Lords who have spoken and bring back another amendment at Third Reading. I hope that the new amendment will reflect the points which have been made. Nevertheless, I wish to see at this point whether we can achieve the inclusion of the objective in the very first clause of the Bill.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Airedale, L.

Dubs, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Avebury, L.

Ennals, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ezra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkender, B.

Bottomley, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Foot, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Dahrendorf, L.

David, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Gregson, L.

Desai, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Haskel, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

1601

Howie of Troon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hughes, L.

Peston, L.

Jeger, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L

Rea, L.

Judd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kennet, L.

Richard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rochester, L.

Kirkhill L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L

Sainsbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E

Shepherd, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Simon, V.

Mallallieu, B.

Stallard, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strafford, E

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McNair, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tope, L.

Milner of Leeds, L

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Monkswell, L.

Walpole, L.

Moran, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nathan, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Nicol, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Addison, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ailsa, M.

Elton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E

Faithfull, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Flather, B.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Annaly, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gainsborough, E

Astor, V.

Gisborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Bethell, L.

Greenway, L.

Blaker, L.

Hambro, L.

Blatch, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L

Blyth, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harrowby, E

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hogg, B.

Brentford, V.

HolmPatrick, L

Brigstocke, B.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hothfield, L.

Burnham, L.

Howe, E

Butterworth, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Cadman, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caithness, E

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinnoull, E

Campbell of Croy, L

Kintore, E

Carnock, L.

Kitchener, E

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Knollys, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Lauderdale, E

Chesham, L.

Lindsay, E

Charley, L.

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L

Coleridge, L.

Lytton, E

Courtown, E

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Cranbrook, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cross, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cumberlege, B.

May, L.

Davidson, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Derwent, L.

Mills, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Milverton, L.

Effingham, E

Monk Bretton, L.

1602

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Renwick, L.

Mottistone, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Mountevans, L.

Rodney, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Romney, E

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Moyne, L.

Salisbury, M.

Munster, E

Seccombe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Newall, L.

St Davids, V.

Norrie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Stockton, E.

Northesk, E

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Orfuird, V.

Sudeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Swansea, L.

Pender, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thurlow, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Quinton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wise, L.

Renton, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert:
("(1A) The Agency shall, in exercising any of its powers under any enactment, protect and enhance the environment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am still persuaded, particularly by what my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said, that it would be nice to have something at the beginning of the Bill on this point but, as I said earlier, in view of the considerable changes that are to be made to Clause 4 under Amendment No. 28, I am happy not to move this or my later amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The Environment Agency]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 115, line 2, leave out from ("may") to ("appoint") in line 3.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 62. The amendments would remove the requirement for the relevant Secretary of State to approve the terms and conditions of service of staff appointed by the agency or by SEPA.
We have been reviewing the need for this control. It will be important for the Government to exercise a strategic control over pay, terms and conditions in view of the substantial funding the agencies will receive from chargepayers and the public purse. But the Bill as it stands would require approval of every detail, which would not be a worthwhile use of resources. The strategic controls required can be exercised under the general power to impose conditions on award of grant to the agencies and would be implemented through their management statements and financial memoranda. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment, which is a real step forward in removing unnecessary bureaucracy. Among the problems which have tended to handicap the

1603
efficient running of the NRA and similar organisations are interference and the second-guessing of points of detail. My noble friend is absolutely right that there are adequate broad powers for the Government to lay down the general rules, but it must be right that the agency should be able to settle such details without continually having to seek approval. This is a welcome step.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. From the breadth of his experience, he has put his finger very much on the point with which we have tried to deal in the amendment. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, before the Minister moves the amendment, will he please clarify that the amendment as drafted is correct? Should it not be—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I believe that on Report the procedure is that once the Minister has spoken, only the noble Lord moving the amendment can speak thereafter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 115, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I should like to speak initially also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9. They seek to transfer the pension rights of those members of the NRA and other organisations which will become part of the new environment agency. The amendments seek to place a statutory duty on the agency to adopt the local government superannuation schemes for both the existing employees of the NRA and other future employees of the agency. They also seek to make arrangements for the separation of the funds of the National Rivers Authority staff and the remnant water authorities' superannuation fund so that the Secretary of State has power to place the administration of the remnant water authorities' superannuation fund with an appropriate body. That will prevent the raiding of one pension fund by another and will ensure the continuance of pensions paid to pensioners and their widows under the water authorities' superannuation fund.
The amendments also place an obligation on the agency to establish a joint pensions advisory committee by agreement with the recognised trade unions. There are analogies with other existing transfers of pensions—for example, the existing London Pensions Fund Authority which looks after former GLC employees. In relation to the advisory committee, I understand that the National Rivers Authority currently has such an advisory committee. The amendments will therefore place the new staff of the agency on all fours with staff of other such agencies in the past.
Amendment No. 10 is rather different although it is grouped with Amendment No. 6. It seeks to ensure that health and safety provisions are promoted within the
1604
agency. Despite repeated requests from the recognised trade unions and the intervention of the Health and Safety Commission, the National Rivers Authority has refused to establish a national joint health and safety committee. It is hoped that the new environment agency will set up such a national committee to ensure that the same standards are applied in its workplaces throughout the country. The present situation with the NRA has brought to light weaknesses in the current health and safety legislation which, although it makes provision for committees to be established at individual workplaces, does not make a similar provision at a national or corporate level. Therefore, it is intended under Amendment No. 10 that there should be a possibility of setting up such a national umbrella committee to ensure similar standards throughout the country. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest in that I am currently the chairman of the NRA's pensions committee and therefore have responsibility for the management of some of the funds referred to in the amendment. I could not support the amendment as it stands because I do not agree with certain aspects of it. However, it raises some important points which I do support.
In my view, it is right in principle that all the employees of the agency should be members of one scheme. It is correct to say that at the moment the NRA's scheme comes under the local government superannuation arrangements. I think that it would be a mistake to commit the Government for ever to including the agencies' pensions under the local government superannuation scheme. I believe that that is appropriate at present, but I do not see why it should necessarily apply for all time.
However, I do not know the Government's view about HMIP employees who are in a different pension scheme. I do not know what the Government intend to do about those employees when they join the new agency. I can well understand that those employees might wish to hang on to their existing pension arrangements. On the other hand, from the point of view of managing an agency, it would be unsatisfactory to have two totally separate sets of pension arrangements. It would be useful to have the Government's intentions on that matter set out—if not today, then before the Bill leaves Parliament.
If other employees are to join the existing scheme, it is important to ensure that adequate provision is made for transfers into the fund—in other words, that the surplus on the NRA's active fund does not end up subsidising transferees into that fund.
The issue identified in Amendment No. 9 relating to the maintenance of separate funds is extremely important. Suggestions have been made that they may be merged. In my view, that would be a wholly unsatisfactory situation. The closed fund has placed on the NRA the responsibility in very difficult circumstances of looking after the pensions of people who have never been its employees. They have been employees of the water industry prior to the setting up of the agency. It is most unfortunate that the time and resources of the NRA and potentially in the future of

1605
the new agency should be diverted to looking after those for whom it should have no responsibility. It would be much better if those responsibilities were transferred to some other appropriate administering authority. I suspect that the situation arises elsewhere as a result of privatisation. There is much to be said for bringing together remnant funds under a single management where specialists can look after them.
The closed fund was transferred at a particularly awkward moment and in particularly awkward circumstances. It was transferred just before the market reached an all-time high. As a consequence of what happened then, it has a deficit. There are problems in running a closed fund. As one reaches expiry one has to continue to fund pensions with no income coming in. The investments have to be sold in more and more difficult circumstances. A moment will come when the Government and the Treasury have to decide what to do about picking up this responsibility. It would be intolerable—here I warmly support the amendment—if an attempt were made to solve the problem by merging the funds so that any surplus properly created on the active fund was used to subsidise, or part-subsidise, the deficit on the closed fund.
I cannot pretend that I am happy about the need to establish what is called a joint advisory committee. It seems to me to be an attempt to impose an unnecessary strict set of rules. There is a pensions committee in the NRA which includes employee representatives. It has worked well and enjoys the support of the trade unions. I would have thought that something similar would be wholly appropriate for the new agency.
The move to a national committee to deal with health, safety and welfare is, I believe, an unnecessary imposition of rules and bureaucracy. There is much to be said for pushing such responsibilities down to regional and local committees which can deal with the situation on the ground. That is not to say that the agency itself will not have a responsibility to maintain the highest standards of health and safety. In that respect I believe that the NRA's record has been rather good. It is a proper management responsibility. Probably the best place to negotiate these matters in a way that deals with the problems is at local level rather than by imposing by statute the requirement for a second tier on top.
Some important points are raised by the amendments. This is a good opportunity for the Government to clarify their intentions. I hope, however, that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment; I believe it to be seriously flawed in some of its details.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I well understand concerns about pensions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, tabled very similar amendments in Committee. I wish to confirm the points I made at that time. First, I confirm that the agency will, through secondary legislation, be designated as an administering authority for the local government superannuation scheme. We do not need primary legislation for that purpose. Moreover, Amendment No. 8 appears to require the agency to offer pensions only under the LGSS. That would be an unnecessary restriction on the agency's ability to develop appropriate alternative arrangements
1606
for its staff. Nor can I accept the provisions of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 which would require the agency to offer all staff the right to a pension under the LGSS. The agency must have freedom in appropriate cases to offer non-pensionable jobs. I reiterate, however, that existing staff who transfer to the agency and whose employment is pensionable must be offered comparable pensions. Staff who are members of LGSS will be offered continued membership of that scheme.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked about those from HMIP and their schemes. We are still considering the future pension arrangements for HMIP staff who will transfer and who are presently on the principal Civil Service pension scheme. Those are ongoing considerations.
As I explained in Committee, there is no need for the Bill to provide for the pension funds of the NRA to vest in the agency as they will automatically transfer. Nor do we think it appropriate to require the agency to establish a joint advisory committee to oversee the management of the scheme. I am supported in that view by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. LGSS regulations already require administering authorities to act prudently in the management of their funds, and the statutory limits which apply to LGSS administering authorities ensure this requirement.
Amendment No. 9 refers to the closed fund for ex-water authority pensioners for which the NRA is currently responsible. In Committee I said that we were considering the future of that fund. I regret that so far I am unable to report an outcome to those deliberations. We intend to report before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. For now, I can assure your Lordships that the pension entitlements under the LGSS, which staff in both the closed and active funds currently enjoy, will continue to be honoured. I believe that my noble friend has indicated some of the problems still to be resolved.
Amendment No. 10 deals with health and safety. The amendment is unnecessary. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and regulations made thereunder already provide for the appointment by recognised trade unions of safety representatives and for an employer to establish a safety committee if requested to do so by two or more safety representatives. With those words, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am by no means an expert on pensions. Clearly, some of the detail of the amendments is not mine. The anxieties are not mine but of the staff who are being transferred to the new agency. They are concerned that their conditions and pension contributions should not be lost as a result of the amalgamation of funds. I shall take back what the Minister said about the amendments and consider whether there is need to pursue the matter at Third Reading.

1607
In relation to health and safety committees, do I understand the Minister to say that if the trade union representatives request it there can be a national committee? Or is he merely saying that such a committee can be set up at individual work places?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I understand it, safety committees will be set up at individual places of work.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I understand that there is no provision in current legislation for the setting up of an overriding committee to establish national standards. In that case, the matter will have to be looked at again and considered before Third Reading. In the circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 115, line 23, after ("this") insert ("paragraph and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to address the issues relating to public access to information arising from the transfer to the new agency of the functions of the waste regulation authorities. As the House will be aware, Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 established waste regulation authorities, recasting the institutional local framework for waste regulation disposal which had been operating under the 1974 control of pollution legislation. Those waste regulation authorities and waste disposal authorities are generally local authorities. The 1990 Act placed obligations on waste disposal and waste regulation authorities.
My concern is that the transfer of the function to an agency (a non-governmental public body—a quango) from local authorities will result in a restriction on the access to information and the rights of the public to follow the activities of that function. When that function was part of local government, subject to the activities, as controlled by the Local Government Act 1972, the local authorities (district councils in the case of Wales) themselves operated openly. Members of the public were able to attend meetings where waste regulation was discussed. They were able to see the background papers, the agendas and the reports at least three days in advance as set out in that local government legislation. They could also see the minutes.
The concern referred to in the two amendments, is that the transfer of the function of waste regulation from waste regulation authorities to the Environment Agency will, in effect, abolish those environmental rights, since the Local Government Act does not apply to quangos. The purpose of my amendments is to make provision so that the agency will operate in a way similar to the present waste regulation authorities which are local authorities.
That argument must be placed in the context of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. I suspect that the Minister will tell the House that there are certain
1608
rights in those regulations and in the European Community directive to access of information on the environment. But these are different rights from the rights that are being abolished by the transfer of functions in Schedule 1.
The EU legislation and the accompanying regulations do not provide rights to attend meetings, and it is not always clear whether relevant documents dealing with waste regulation would be regarded as information relating to the environment. For all those reasons, and because the European Commission has taken enforcement procedures against the UK Government for failing to implement that EC directive, I am worried that the waste regulation function information may not be available.
As drafted, my amendments would extend the rights held in respect of waste regulation by waste regulation authorities as local authorities to the agency's other functions—functions currently held by the NRA and the HMIP—which means that there would be an extension of environmental information rights rather than a restriction of those rights.
This is a serious issue in that it moves away from a more open kind of government in relation to the environment, and that is something which should concern not just the environmental movement and Earth Rights, the environmental advice centre that has drawn the issue to my attention, but the Government themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: Mr Lords, the amendment goes far further than dealing merely with information. The noble Lord acknowledged only at the end of his speech that it would apply not just to waste but to all the other functions of the agency. It is an amendment which would alter totally the organisational structure and mode of operation of the component parts of the agency from what is envisaged in the Bill. It is a major structural change to the Bill. It is not just a question of information, it is asking that the committee should have the job of accepting responsibility and effectively managing the operation. It is a profound and extensive change, and it should be considered extremely carefully.
The NRA has operated with advisory committees which receive an immense amount of information, and play a central role in the agency's operation. I hope that the new environment agency will behave in the same way. I hope that the advisory committees will be involved fully and will be provided with virtually all the information relating to the carrying on of the function, and that they are consulted fully.
To move in the way suggested would make it almost impossible for the board to accept responsibility, and for the management of the agency effectively to carry out the operation in an organisation such as it has been envisaged and is being set up in the Bill. We should be careful therefore before we accept such an amendment. I should need a great deal of convincing that this was a sensible way in which to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I warmly support the amendments. I well understand the concerns of those who have been used to operating in a regime which is not so immediately in the public eye as are local

1609
authorities. I suspect that it is a concern felt more by officials than by those who take decisions; in other words, comparing the board with, say, local authority members. But there is not so much to be frightened of in the proposal. Local authorities, which are complex organisations, have succeeded in working under those provisions, as is self-evident, for 20 years, and it is not a bad discipline. Apart from that, and most fundamentally, public bodies should be prepared to have what they do available for inspection and scrutiny so that they can answer directly to members of the public.
Were quangos more easily open to scrutiny, there might not be such public concern about what goes on, as is popularly said, in smoke-filled rooms behind closed doors. In saying that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will not think that I am suggesting that that is how the NRA has been operating.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the amendments are concerned with the procedures under which the agency arranges for the exercise of its functions. We should consider carefully the amendment, because, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, it seeks to require the agency to exercise all its functions through committees and sub-committees. I have to tell your Lordships that I cannot support such a requirement. I understand the genesis of the requirement, because the waste regulation authorities are part of local authorities and, therefore, subject to those regulations.
However, as it stands, the Bill gives the agency freedom, reflecting that for the NRA, to regulate its procedures largely as it sees fit. It already has power to establish committees or sub-committees, but I do not consider it appropriate to fetter the agency by requiring that it should exercise its functions through such committees. Of course, the exception to that may be the flood defence committees; but, with that exception, it regulates its own procedures.
The noble Lord's amendment goes further. It seeks to impose a number of provisions relating to rights of access to meetings and to information. As I said in Committee, the agency will in any case be subject to a duty under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 to make available environmental information to every person who requests it, subject to exemptions in those regulations. In general, the agency will be expected to conduct its affairs fully in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and the Code of Best Practice for Board Members of Public Bodies. Within those constraints, it will be up to the agency to consider how to put into practice principles of openness and transparency. Therefore, I have to tell the noble Lord that I cannot accept his amendments. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I welcome the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the proposals on open government. It is also appropriate, I believe, that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I should disagree on occasion. It means that, when we agree, it is even more powerful, as indeed it was in the case of the earlier amendment which I withdrew and to which I shall return.
1610
There is a very important issue involved; namely, the transfer of functions to a central agency and its effect in relation to the public, especially regarding information. I shall look again at the what the noble Viscount has said, along with what was said on the issue in Committee regarding the relevance of the environmental information regulations, the EC directive on access to information and the code of practice that was mentioned.
However, I suspect that what we are seeing here is a step backwards, at least in one area, from more open government to more closed government. That highlights the whole issue to which the noble Baroness referred, of the transfer of functions to non-departmental public bodies, non-elected bodies, and away from a forum of accountable debate.
Clearly, those of us who are charged with the responsibility for public bodies, including the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and myself in different ways, always try to ensure that we operate in an open way. However, that is not the same as ensuring access by members of the public directly whenever they need it to the information that they require in a general way. This is happening at a time when there is greater interest in environmental law and its implications and greater activity on the part of citizens in the whole area.
I turn now to the advisory committee structure of the NRA. Although I am well aware of the value of flood defence committees and so on—indeed, I have seen them operating very effectively in my parliamentary constituency when I was in another place, when we had various crises with flooding over the years—that structure does not seem to be necessarily the appropriate model for the operation of the new agency. It worries me that we are setting up what will be seen as a strong lead agency in the area of the environment in Europe because the functions brought together within it seem, at the same time, to be undermining the rights of citizens to have access to information. Therefore, while I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I give notice that the issue of information relating to the activity of the agency will either be returned to at Third Reading in this Chamber or dealt with in another place if the Bill progresses.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Transfer of functions to the Agency]:
Lord McNair Lord McNair: moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 3 on page 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 86, which is grouped with Amendment No. 13. In Committee, I looked forward welcomingly to the appearance of the consultation document on the future of our inland waterways. Therefore, it is logical that, now it has appeared, I should welcome it; indeed, I do so.
However, before I come to that, the effect of Amendment No. 13 would be to leave the navigation responsibilities of the NRA with the NRA and the effect

1611
of Amendment No. 86 would be to create a new body which I have called "the National Waterways Conservancy". The name does not matter, but what is important is that the recreational and navigational functions of both the NRA and at least the present British Waterways should be brought together into a single body that would regulate and promote the use of our inland waterways, which are now separately controlled.
It is a sad fact that boat traffic on the Thames has decreased steadily since the early 1980s. There is much that could be done to promote nationally and internationally the recreational use of our inland waterways. Holidays taken at home save the country foreign currency and holidays taken by visitors to the country obviously earn foreign currency. That is something that we should seek to exploit.
In addition, the increasing revenue would or should mean that more would be spent on the upkeep of our waterways. That can only be to the good. I feel that a separate body charged with that responsibility would do the job better and would in fact offer savings compared with the existing hotchpotch of authorities.
Perhaps I may dwell a little on the consultation document, which contains six options for future management of the waterways. I must say that I am delighted to see that the options include Option F, which establishes a statutory navigation body as suggested by Amendment No. 86. As your Lordships may imagine, it is Option F which has the most attraction for me and it is the one to which my amendments are designed to draw attention. It is stated government policy to increase private and voluntary sector involvement. The Government are also concerned to rationalise outdated regulations. Recreational interests have expressed the fear that the department intends that users should have to pay a higher proportion of costs.
The criteria adopted by the Government for consideration of the six options are: management and operational efficiency; cost; potential for local and national promotion; development of economic and environmental benefits; more effective customer representation; and improvement of co-operation and collaboration between different waterway authorities.
In my view, the key challenges are fragmented management, the standards used for charging, attitudes to users on the part of the managing authority and its approach to its navigational responsibilities. I also feel that it is most important that there should be a single centre of excellence with regard to maintenance of the physical structure and integrity and to the commercial evolution of the waterway environment. Navigation has a very low profile in the NRA, in the environment agency and nationally. That is an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, will address when moving his amendments. Of course, I wholeheartedly support him.
It appears that the government grant for essential work will continue but that they are committed to reducing it. The defence of the budget for all of the waterways is of prime importance to all concerned, as are increasing resources and broadening the base on
1612
which charges can be levied. New sources of funding are needed, and I am sure that they would be more easily obtained by a single navigation authority.
There is great potential for building upon the existing vigorous restoration movement, but, to develop, we need a wider public understanding of the value of waterways and their benefits which should in turn attract local authority funding. That is also more likely if waterways are represented by a single voice.
A single national navigation authority would also provide the forum for debates and discussions at national level with government bodies to promote a better future for waterways and to deal with directives emanating from Brussels. It would also be easier to create a national consumer body for waterways users.
A single national waterways authority would set out the overall framework within which all other navigation bodies could function independently but with greater co-ordination and collaboration. It would be centrally funded, locally managed but answerable to national government. It would aim to involve and encourage local authority support on behalf of the local community, and it would promote and defend navigation interests.
The Government have conceded that change is in the air but have not moved as far as I am suggesting they should. They were able to claim with some justification that there was no consensus among waterways interests at the time of the 1991–92 review, but I do feel that there is increasing convergence of Views and I feel sure this will be demonstrated as the consultation process continues.
I do not wish to push too far ahead of the present majority view, and so I am simply raising this so that we can see what the Government's present thinking on the matter is. But it is something which will need to be looked at as the review process proceeds. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I was relieved to hear the noble Lord's concluding words, as I think they will enable me to shorten my remarks. It seemed to me that he was welcoming the publication of the consultation document and then urging that we should jump ahead of the consultation and take some action which might be detrimental and damaging. I would have had to argue against that. I am all for co-ordination. We in the NRA will be holding a meeting with a number of the interested parties on 10th March because we think that co-operation and co-ordination are of great importance. But the fact is that there are some important issues here.
The navigations have all been established under different statutes over long periods of time. There are some good reasons for transferring navigations to the environment agency where they are held by the NRA. The Thames is one of the most closely managed river systems in the world and the navigations are part of an integrated approach to that management. I am sure that when my noble friend the Minister replies he will say that the proper way to deal with this is to complete the consultation, and that the matter would require separate legislation rather than to proceed by way of an amendment at this stage. In that confident expectation I shall not pursue the matter further.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, both noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned the navigation review. In my speech on Second Reading I said I looked forward to the Department of the Environment's review on navigation and hoped it would get under way without delay. I also mentioned the need to address the possibility of day-to-day management of navigation resting in the hands of an agency other than the NRA or the environment agency. I join with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, in welcoming the prompt issue of the consultation paper some two weeks ago because it provides a significant opportunity to clarify the concerns of all waterway interests and fully explore other options, including the issues which I have been raising and will be raising again later this afternoon concerning representation and the balance to be accorded to the needs of navigation. Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that before embarking on a fairly major change such as the one proposed in Amendment No. 86, we should wait until the Government have had time to gather and properly assess the responses of the various boating and waterway interests to the consultation document.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, perhaps I should mention within the hotchpotch of authorities referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, my experience as a member of the Broads Authority, which is a navigation authority as well as one with environmental concerns, and my experience, through English Nature, of the Basingstoke Canal, which again has an independent authority. I emphasise that next to the control of damaging discharges, navigation is probably the one area which presents perhaps the greatest potential for conflict with environmental concerns, and is an area where compatibility between environmental concerns and the proper desire to fulfil the navigation function needs to be considered most carefully.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has again drawn the attention of the House to his proposals for the establishment of a new national waterways conservancy. His Amendments Nos. 13 and 86 envisage the conservancy assuming all the responsibilities for the management of navigations currently operated by the National Rivers Authority and the British Waterways Board. A body of this kind is, as he has mentioned, one of the options described in the Government's recent consultation paper seeking views on the future management of navigations by these two public bodies. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord McNair, for their congratulations on promoting the review.
As my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has indicated, our waterways must serve many different interests. Therefore the Government consider it is only right that, before any decisions are taken, those concerned should be given an adequate opportunity to make their views known on what they see as the best way of securing the future of our waterways. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for indicating how that is being taken forward. I can assure the noble Lord that we will be looking seriously at the responses, but to amend this Bill as the noble Lord suggests would pre-judge the
1614
proper consideration of the responses to the consultation exercise. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said. I am glad of another opportunity to have been able to air this possibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, leave out lines 7 to 15 and insert:
("( ) the functions of the Secretary of State under section 68 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
( ) the powers of the Secretary of State under section 72 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;
( ) the functions of disposal authorities under section 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we turn to the subject of waste regulation. The amendment is grouped with a number of others in my name, but on reflection (I apologise to the House for this) I think it might be preferable to concentrate on Amendment No. 14, listen to what the Minister has to say in response to that proposed way of dealing with the matter, and then perhaps I may return to the more fundamental proposals at Third Reading—which seek to remove the references to the transfer of waste regulation—when I have had an opportunity to consider what the Minister has to say. I tabled the other amendments because this is a matter which we dealt with late at night and I, for one, did not feel that we had given it the airing I should have liked.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to remove Clause 2(1) (b) which concerns the transfer of the functions of waste regulation authorities—as spelt out in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and in the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989—and in their place to insert certain other restricted duties. Waste regulation responds to a localised form of pollution. In many ways it is quite different from the other forms of pollution which will be the subject of the agency's work. I fear that, as drafted, the wholesale transfer of the functions of the current authorities may have a number of unhappy consequences, in particular the loss of local political accountability. The question of accountability and local representation is one to which we shall return later, in particular in the context of an amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. But waste regulation is currently undertaken by local authorities or, in the case of London, by councillors indirectly elected to the London Waste Regulation Authority.
A further consequence of the transfer of the functions would be the difficulty of establishing external liaison, particularly if the boundaries are those of river catchment areas, or any other boundary that is not a political boundary. Those who deal with a number of areas of public life suffer from the lack of coterminosity of so many of our public sector functions. I should be sorry to see a further problem of this sort arising. Waste regulation has to relate to planning, to environmental health and to emergency planning. No doubt there are other functions which I have not listed. My amendment would make matters far more convenient and would

1615
result in a more productive use of the time of the professionals involved, as well as a better liaison at a political level, and therefore, if you like, a strategic level.
In addition, it is unlikely that the committees established under the Bill will be sufficiently local to replace in the public mind the local accountability of the current regime. It has been suggested to me that on losing this area of work local authorities may tend to address waste licensing issues in particular through conditions attached to planning consents. That would be less appropriate than dealing with the matter through waste regulation.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is the possible return to what has been described as the poacher and gamekeeper approach, combining regulation and the work of waste management. The concerns of practitioners in that regard should not be dismissed lightly. The Waste Management Forum has written to the Minister. I am aware of his reply but I believe that the matter is sufficiently important to raise it in your Lordships' House. The Waste Management Forum commented on the separation of the operational and regulatory functions and the potential conflicts of interest which it believes will occur if the agency provides a service as well as enforcing the standards to which that service is delivered.
The Waste Management Forum has also commented on a matter which I find interesting. It is one which may well be difficult to tackle and does not lend itself to inclusion in legislation. That issue is the differences in organisational cultures in the potential parts of the agency. One cannot legislate to introduce a change of culture overnight.
The Waste Management Forum points out that the waste regulatory authorities are constituted on a local community basis, with strong community representation and the involvement of waste producers and carriers. The NRA, on the other hand, is constituted on a regional basis, with monitoring of end-of-pipe processes, and the HMIP places emphasis on adopting a holistic approach and encouraging processes which minimise environmental impact.
The Minister may argue that marrying those approaches would be a good thing. I would not necessarily disagree with him if he were to say that, but one should not minimise the difficulties that may be encountered in doing so. Therefore, one should be careful before imposing on authorities such a change and a need to address the way in which they go about their work.
This is not merely a question of the fears of local authorities about losing yet more functions. I have spoken to London First, which as your Lordships may know is an organisation which involves representatives of the business community in London. I should declare an interest as a member of its board. It also involves representatives from various parts of the public sector.
It is the view of London First that if the current arrangement is not broken don't fix it. London First considers that the London Waste Regulation Authority is competent and is not likely to be improved by being
1616
taken over by the environment agency. The organisation is also concerned about accountability and considers that there should be a regional arm of the agency accountable to Londoners. I have been asked to make that point.
Lastly, I am concerned as to how one should split the work of dealing with the waste stream and at which point in the process it should be split from local operation to a national agency. Your Lordships are largely agreed that it is increasingly important to minimise waste at source. I fear that this measure will make it more difficult for the waste disposal authorities which deal with the collection of waste to continue the work that many are doing in, for instance, the separation of items in household waste and separate collection, in particular for recycling, and dealing with that waste in the best way. If the process is not a seamless one from the householder right through the disposal operation, and if part of the operation is separated from the local process, it may not continue to develop as many of your Lordships would wish.
I should like briefly to explain the implications of the amendments, which are a little opaque in referring only to sections in other legislation. In the amendment I propose that, in place of the wholesale transfer of functions, the functions which are referred to in Amendment No. 14 should be inserted. The function covered by Section 68 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is the supervision of the performance of the duties of waste regulation authorities and the appointment of inspectors. to ensure that performance. The functions covered by Section 72 of the same Act are the default powers of the Secretary of State, who can make an order requiring a defaulting authority to comply and, if necessary, take over the relevant functions. Section 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relates to ensuring adequate arrangements for the control of waste. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her Amendment No. 14. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also, as she did, to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 65 and 66.
We have had a number of discussions about the relationship between local authorities and the new agency in England and Wales. Those discussions have either taken place late at night and have therefore been somewhat unsatisfactory or have not gone into the matter in sufficient detail. The noble Baroness has done the House a favour by moving the amendment and speaking to the others, and explaining with great clarity what seems to us to be a more sensible and reasonable division of responsibilities between local authorities and the agency.
There can be no doubt that local authorities will continue to be involved with waste in some way or another. Their environmental health duties, for example, ensure that they cannot avoid having a role. They also have a role in clearing dangerous substances. There are various provisions which will ensure that local authorities will still be in the business of waste. The

1617
problem is at what point the activity of a local authority stops and the authority of the agency begins. My own view is that that should be as set out in the local authority associations' document Protecting the Future, which I have no doubt the noble Viscount has read. The document sets out a model whereby the agency, quite rightly, undertakes strategic functions, sets standards, enforces standards and has default powers, but the regulatory functions at local level are undertaken at local level and the operations are undertaken at local level.
Perhaps I may illustrate the way in which that works. If any resident of any local authority finds some violation of waste regulation—perhaps some waste at the back of the garden, or whatever it might be, which is not properly there—whatever the process of education may be, there is no doubt that the first authority to which he or she will go is the local authority. However many placards or television advertisements one puts out about the duties of the agency, that cannot be avoided: someone will ring up the local councillor. In a sense that is what local councillors are for; that is what they are accountable for.
In that case, what does the local councillor do? Does he say, "It's not my job. It's now the job of an agency to look after it"? Alternatively, does he say, "In one way or another, I'll look after it"? The answer is that he says, "In one way or another, I'll look after it". That is the natural, human reaction. He may say, "It's unsafe material and therefore the local authority has a duty to remove it". He may seek to take action against those who left the stuff lying around. However, that is waste regulation by default because the local authority has a duty in a different direction from waste regulation.
Therefore, I argue that in her amendment the noble Baroness has the matter more or less right: the agency should have the power to enforce standards, but local authorities should have the power of local regulation. I believe that that is the right way round. I hope that the noble Viscount recognises that the relationship between the local authority and the agency is an extremely serious problem. I believe that the amendment is the right way to tackle the issue. I very much hope that the noble Viscount agrees.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, similar amendments were tabled at Committee stage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. I am glad of the opportunity to debate them now because the amendments raise important issues which are fundamental to the Bill. I therefore welcome the chance to explain to the House why we are giving the agency responsibility for waste regulation.
Amendment No. 14 is the principal amendment in this group and would remove waste regulation from the list of functions to be transferred to the agency under Clause 2. I shall address Amendment No. 14, as I believe the noble Baroness intended that I should.
Waste regulation is an integral part of the concept behind the environment agency and we cannot agree to its omission. We believe that it would be impossible to move to a more coherent and integrated approach to environmental protection—a multi-media agency—if waste regulation remains with local government.
1618
The Government are not alone in believing that the transfer of waste regulation to the agency is necessary. The waste regulation profession in general, as well as the waste industry, and industry at large, see merit in the principle of an integrated approach to environmental protection. The Select Committee on the Environment in another place has recommended that waste regulation should become the responsibility of a single national body. Environmental regulation is an increasingly complex field and the continued delivery of waste regulation by local authorities would limit the use and development of vital expertise.
I appreciate that the concerns expressed about the proposed transfer of waste regulation to the agency spring from fears that the agency will be insufficiently accountable at a local level. As I have said before, the Government intend that it should be responsible and responsive to individuals' concerns; we do not accept that accountability can be achieved only through control by local authorities.
We have made clear through the objectives set out in the agency's draft management statement, and through the provision in this Bill for the setting up of regional environment protection advisory committees, that we attach great importance to the agency building effective and responsive relationships with local communities and local authorities. The regional committees will represent those with a significant interest in the way the environment agency carries out its functions. They will have an important role in ensuring that a wide range of local opinion feeds into the agency and its operations on the ground.
It has been suggested that under the agency there would be no scope for consideration of the concerns of local people regarding the potential impact on local amenity and possible pollution from a proposed waste management facility. This conviction is puzzling. The local planning authorities will continue to determine whether and where waste facilities are sited. They will be able to include appropriate conditions relating to local amenity in any relevant planning permission. The agency's consideration of any waste management licence application, and decisions on appropriate conditions to be set in such a licence, must comply with the same waste management licensing regulations and statutory guidance as the decisions of local waste regulation authorities at present. Existing waste regulation staff who transfer to the agency will bring with them their local knowledge and will be able to apply this to the consideration of licence applications, and to their proper and effective regulation.
I hope that I have been able to convince the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and your Lordships, of the merits and desirability of giving responsibility for waste regulation to the new agencies, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, one reaction must be that it would not be necessary to set up the liaison

1619
arrangements which the Minister advocates if the steps of separation and removal did not take effect in the first place.
I am not surprised at the Minister's response. However, his comments about the widespread support for the proposals from the industry surprise me. I quoted from the Waste Management Forum. I do not suggest that every last word stated by an umbrella body is analysed to every dot and comma by its members. However, perhaps I may put on record the membership of that forum according to its letterhead: the Confederation of British Industry; the Department of the Environment (I do not suggest that in this instance it will agree with this point); the Environmental Council; the Health and Safety Executive; HMIP; the Institute of Waste Management; the Institution of Civil Engineers; the Institution of Environmental Health Officers; the Institution of Water and Environmental Management; the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; the Road Haulage Association; the Royal Town Planning Institute; the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; and the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association. The Institute of Waste Management has specifically written to me and, I believe, to other noble Lords urging that the regulatory function remains separate from any operational role. It states that experience of separating the regulation and disposal functions within the waste management industry has had a positive effect in raising standards. It is that philosophy which it applies in commenting on the provisions of the Bill.
Again I shall consider what the Minister said. However, in seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, I express a fairly considerable degree of disappointment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the Agency]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert ("but only after consultation with the Agency and, in the case of a scheme which was approved by him (with or without modifications), after consultation with the body which submitted the scheme to him for approval.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 64. Amendments Nos. 19 and 64 correct an anomaly in the Bill to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, drew the Committee's attention. They provide for consultation by the relevant Secretary of State before exercising his power to modify a transfer scheme which he has previously made or approved. This reflects provisions already in the Bill covering other circumstances where a scheme may be modified. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the matter to our attention. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for moving the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Guidance on sustainable development and other aims and objectives]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("give") and insert ("lay before Parliament an order containing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think it may be more convenient if we were to save discussion on the amendment until we have heard about the Government's new clause in detail. I shall therefore not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert (", and must include guidance on energy conservation and on systems for producing energy which contribute to the objective of sustainable development").
The noble Lord said: Again, my Lords, I prefer that we should debate the matter after new Clause 4 has been considered. I shall therefore not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 28:
Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:
General aims and objectives of the Agency
(" .—(1) It shall be the principal aim of the Agency (subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any other enactment and taking into account any likely costs) in discharging its functions so to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, as to make the contribution towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development mentioned in subsection (3) below.
(2) The Ministers shall from time to time give guidance to the Agency with respect to objectives which they consider it appropriate for the Agency to pursue in the discharge of its functions.
(3) The guidance given under subsection (2) above must include guidance with respect to the contribution which, having regard to the Agency's responsibilities and resources, the Ministers consider it appropriate for the Agency to make, by the discharge of its functions, towards attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development.
(4) In discharging its functions, the Agency shall have regard to guidance given under this section.
(5) The power to give guidance to the Agency under this section shall only be exercisable after consultation with the Agency and such other bodies or persons as the Ministers consider it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance in question.
(6) The Ministers shall arrange for any guidance given under this section to be published in such manner as they consider appropriate.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with this amendment I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 96, 100 and 124. I am grateful to noble Lords for not moving their amendments to Clause 4 so that we may have a proper debate and for giving me the opportunity to open for the Government.
Amendment No. 28 seeks to meet the desire expressed by a number of noble Lords in Committee for a strategic purpose for the agency to be included on the face of the Bill. It incorporates within Clause 4 a new

1621
principal aim designed to make clear that the agency is to discharge its functions so to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, as to make its contribution towards achieving sustainable development. In so doing it is to take account of likely costs, both financial and to the environment. The principal aim is not to overrule the specific purpose of the various enactments under which the agency operates.
During the debate in Committee a number of noble Lords also stressed the need for consultation prior to the issuing of guidance under this clause and for publication of such guidance, not merely at the outset but for any subsequent guidance. Amendment No. 28 incorporates provisions to require such consultation and publication.
Amendment No. 100 is consequential to the revised clause. Clause 37 as originally drafted excluded consideration of costs and benefits in relation to an aim since the aims were to arise through statutory guidance, in the drawing up of which Ministers would themselves have taken account of costs and benefits. Now that the principal aim is to be on the face of the Bill and is to be subject to the requirements of any enactment, that exclusion is no longer appropriate.
Amendment No. 124 seeks to ensure that the reference to costs in the new Clause 4 and elsewhere in Part I includes costs to any person and to the environment. Taken together with Amendment No. 96, it also makes clear that, as I stressed in Committee, references to both costs and benefits in Clause 37 are to be interpreted broadly to include environmental costs. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, Amendment No. 29:
Line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("(1) It shall be the principal aim of the Agency in discharging its functions (subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any other enactment) to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, in such manner as to make the contribution towards achieving sustainable development mentioned in subsection (3) below.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30. Both amendments are in the names of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and myself.
I am happy to be the first to welcome the new clause that the Government have proposed. It makes for a more rewarding process than some of us feared. At Committee stage when the Minister, understandably, said that he had noted what was suggested, he really had noted it. That is not always the case. Having welcomed that movement, I hope it is not churlish to suggest that perhaps there may be a little more movement.
I shall explain the two amendments. In Amendment No. 29 I propose that the words in parenthesis,
"subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act or any other enactment",
should govern the functions of the agency and not its aim. That is probably self-evident, and to some extent we have already debated it this afternoon. However, it is important that the aims and functions should be in the right order.
I have omitted the reference to "likely costs" because I am not persuaded that the aim of the agency should be governed by the consideration of costs. In the real world, of course, costs must be taken into account and I shall welcome a further amendment later in the context of Clause 37. However, costs should not be elevated to quite the status they are given in the new clause. I wonder how the provision would be interpreted if the agency is to take into account "any likely costs". Costs to whom? That is a genuine question, not a posturing point. I read the provision as meaning costs to the agency. Perhaps in responding the Minister can say whose costs are meant by "any likely costs".
Amendment No. 30 proposes that:
"The Ministers shall from time to time give to the agency such guidance as they consider appropriate with respect to how to achieve its aim".
That follows the debate at Committee stage, and the words are repeated in Amendment No. 28 that,
"The Ministers shall … give guidance to the Agency with respect to objectives".
I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to take the objectives out of the remit of their own guidance. I believe that as the agency is to be set up, it is appropriate that guidance shall be given as to how the agency achieves its objectives but not what they should be. In other words, it is fair for the Government to say: "This is how you should set about it", but they do not give the overall objectives. Many of us feared at Committee stage that the work of the agency would be skewed by the Government's "interference", if I may use the word, in its objectives. We thought it would be better to separate the objectives and the functions in the guidance. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I echo the welcome given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to the Government's amendment. It goes a long way towards meeting many of the observations we made at earlier stages of the discussion on the Bill. I also warmly welcome Amendment No. 124 in the group which includes environmental as well as financial costs.
However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am still concerned that costs have been written into what is in some ways a purpose for the agency. It lays emphasis on costs rather than an enthusiastic and positive function and purpose for the agency. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could explain what the expression "taken as a whole" means. It seems to be a piece of parliamentary draftsmanship which has no clear meaning in ordinary English, although it is echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in her amendment. I would be grateful for an explanation.
As we received the Government's amendment rather late, at this stage I should say that we shall bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to subsection (6) which will suggest that any guidance given under the clause shall be laid before Parliament, as well as being published in such other manner as Ministers consider appropriate. That will be a further amendment to the clause which we shall bring before the House in due course. But overall it represents a very welcome advance by the Government in their position, and we

1623
are grateful, although it does not go as far as writing a purpose into Clause 1, about which I am sure we shall continue to argue.
6 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I also echo the warm welcome for the Government's response to this series of amendments. It means that we are moving gradually towards the objectives of proper environmental costing; that is, real costs in both economic terms (financial terms) and environmental resource terms. That moves us a long way towards the other objective of "sustainable development", which some Members of this House believe does not exist. It is clear to me from these amendments that the Government believe that it exists more and more.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I welcome the Government's amendment. But it still does not address the definition of "sustainable development". It is certainly not addressed in this Bill; and so far as I know, there is no definition elsewhere. I suspect that this phrase arose out of the Helsinki Conference, which was mainly concerned with the use of resources in under-developed countries, and therefore with the way in which they would be brought into use as development took place.
Does the phrase really cover what we are trying to talk about in our own industrialised, and already resource-extravagant economy? Would it not be better—as I suggested in Amendment No. 24, which I did not move—to use the phrase "sustainable use"; or "sustainable use of resources"; or possibly, "sustainable use and development"?—although I suggest that "use" probably includes development. I urge the Government to consider either using a phrase that would be much more easily understood by people—that is to say, "sustainable use"—or else to define "sustainable development".
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, following immediately on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, we have a difficulty in relation to the phrase "sustainable development". As I believe I pointed out at an earlier stage, the phrase attempts to embrace a balance between environmental protection and development, and in a sense economic development. In a sense therefore there is a conflict. In a curious way it is therefore rather odd that we should attempt to make an environment agency responsible for judgments about economic development. Hence the difficulty.
As I understand it, we have here an attempt to put the aim into statutory form, and then provide an interpretation by way of ministerial guidance. We shall therefore get a form of statutory ministerial guidance, and everything will crucially depend upon the guidance. It is for that reason that I very much welcome my noble friend's undertaking—or commitment as it is now—in this clause both to consult the agency and to publish that guidance. There is another amendment which seeks to make sure that that guidance is published in good time.
1624
I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting my request at an earlier stage and making it possible for me not to move my Amendment No. 27, which takes up this point about publishing the guidance and consulting the agency.
I think that we have here a laudable attempt by the Government to meet the demands of this House, and in a sense the concerns expressed in this House about our legislating about a phrase that has not been properly defined and which probably cannot be properly defined. Therefore there is no alternative but to rely on interpretation. And it must be for the Government to give an interpretation—that seems to me to be an appropriate role for government—on which the agency will act. It cannot be for an agency to make judgments about what is the appropriate economic role. Therefore we are still in the position of having to wait for the Government's publication of that guidance before we really know where we are. But at least we are now having it presented in a reasonably sensible way, and for that I am grateful.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I agreed with my noble friend the Minister not to move Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 in order to save the complications that would arise given that the Government have re-written Clause 4. Anyway, there is no need to move Amendment No. 27 as the Government's Amendment No. 28 now provides Ministers with a statutory obligation, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has already said, both to consult the agency and to. publish the guidance. I very much welcome that.
However, I should still like to refer to the point raised in what was my Amendment No. 26; namely, the need to provide preliminary guidance on sustainable development by 12 months after the Act comes into force. I stress the word "preliminary", because I fully accept that guidance may need to be revised and indeed added to.
The guidance on sustainable development will be central to the manner in which the new agency carries out all its functions. I was heartened in Committee when my noble friend the Minister said that it is indeed the Government's intention to publish guidance within a 12-month period. But I was slightly less heartened when he stated that he saw no need to state that on the face of the Bill. I can only ask the Minister perhaps to reconsider, and suggest that it would be helpful to set an appropriate time limit for delivery of the preliminary guidance.
It must surely be the Government's intention to provide such guidance at the earliest suitable opportunity. I ask simply: why cannot the Government commit themselves to a deadline on the face of the Bill? If they cannot, will my noble friend the Minister at least consider a timetable for the production of this guidance, albeit that it does not occur on the face of the Bill?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is, for once, completely in error when he says that there is no a definition of "sustainable development". There is a definition of the phrase which is widely understood both nationally and internationally; namely, the Brundtland definition. I

1625
paraphrase it slightly, and no doubt the Minister will correct me when he answers this point; it is: to meet the needs of the present without prejudicing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Or it could be expressed in the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment when he addressed the Select Committee of this House on sustainable development. (I am sure that this House must be understood to have known what it was doing when it set up such a Committee). In giving evidence, he said that he preferred to call it, "Don't cheat the children". That may be a slight over-simplification, but "sustainable development" is well understood both nationally and internationally, and I am sure that it should be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question of the meaning of "sustainable development". Obviously, in the context of this Bill it must mean "environmentally sustainable". If development is to take place and there is an argument about whether or not it should take place, then surely those who have to decide the matter will consider whether it is environmentally sustainable. If it is not environmentally sustainable, then it should not take place. With that in mind, I would have thought that any further definition would be impossible.
The word "sustainable" and the combination with "environmentally" must vary with the circumstances of every case. What might be environmentally sustainable in, for example, the Thames estuary, might well be considered not to be environmentally sustainable, let us say, at the mouth of one of the Highland rivers.
Having said that, one of the great virtues of the Government's new clause is that it implements—as one of my noble friends earlier said that it should—the phrase in the Long Title of the Bill,
"the conservation or enhancement of the environment".
It does just that. This is what was suggested when we discussed the first amendment today. This new clause should go a long way towards meeting the requirements of my noble friend Lord Nome and others who wanted a further definition at the beginning of the Bill attached to Clause 1.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and supported by the Labour Front Bench, have the virtue of simple drafting and greater brevity than the wording in the new clause. But to my mind the points about them are so rarefied and so fine as to be not worth making. I should not be inclined to persuade my noble friend Lord Ullswater to accept either Amendment No. 29 or Amendment No. 30; but I would say to him that he would not be doing much harm if he were to do so.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am very glad that the Minister has brought forward this new clause. I warmly welcome it, and particularly the reference to protecting and enhancing the environment, which is of central importance, the reference to consultation, which was a point argued by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and myself during the Committee stage, and to having on the face of the Bill a commitment to publication of the guidance. All those points are very important.
1626
The only point of importance that is missing is the one that I argued for strongly at Committee stage; namely, to have some parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance. That was proposed in Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I certainly supported. It is a significant omission from the new clause.
With regard to the "sustainable development" mentioned in the first subsection of the new clause, I support the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. A few days ago I wrote to the Minister about various matters in the Bill and suggested to him that it might be preferable to have a phrase such as "environmental sustainability" instead of "sustainable development". In that letter I said that:
"I think that fashionable buzz words, meaning nothing to most people and interpreted quite differently by developers and environmentalists, should not be accorded prominence, or indeed used at all, in an Act of Parliament … I do not think that the word `development' should have any place in the duties of an environmental agency".
I still adhere to that view.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I might be able to help by bringing this debate into the realm of practicality. I agree that my noble friend the Minister has taken an extremely constructive step in bringing forward this clause. We discussed it briefly earlier this afternoon when my noble friend Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 4 and we tried to assess the extent to which the two amendments overlapped in their intentions. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, interpretation is the key issue. My test would be: does this amendment contain within it the strengths of the general conservation duty that is held at present by the NRA?
With the permission of my noble friend the Minister, I have circulated to as many noble Lords as appear interested in this topic and to relevant non-governmental organisations correspondence between us on the issues that concern English Nature. As a consequence, I can be brief. As I made clear, English Nature recently carried out a review of SSSI lakes. There are some 37 such lakes which are currently subject to eutrophication, as are some 13 river SSSIs, where for nature conservation reasons there is particular concern over elevated phosphate levels. Those are all on the lists that have been made public today. I can assure your Lordships that English Nature and the NRA have been engaged in active discussion on them.
On the lists that have been circulated there are 18 SSSIs where the NRA's existing conservation duty has already been important, in the eyes of English Nature, in protecting those sites. As I said, they are included in the briefing. But I shall mention in particular the River Nar, where the phosphate consent was set to ensure that the character of a chalk stream and trout fishery was maintained, and Rosstherne Mere, where the NRA undertook remedial works to tackle the marked enrichment of the lake, which was suffering from algal blooms.

1627
I appreciate the difficulties of my noble friend in answering questions relating to particular instances; but the key question at which I shall wish to look very carefully in respect of these amendments is whether action of this nature would be covered by this new clause. Would the concerns that I have aired be within the embrace of the term "environment … as a whole", as appears in this amendment? Will the duty of sustainable development give the protection required to those very sensitive and delicate aquatic SSSIs, about which we must be concerned?
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, in welcoming and supporting new Clause 4 I should like to make reference to an amendment which I withdrew and which was intended to be in the original Clause 4. It was designed to draw the attention of my noble friend to the fact that it is the Government's committed view that in order to achieve sustainable development—I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that that should be as defined by the Minister in the guidance—there is a necessity to be aware of the cost and use of energy and have an awareness of how important it is to have energy systems which are efficient and use the best technology to achieve those objectives. I therefore put down an amendment, which I later withdrew but to which I may perhaps refer. It inserted the words:
"and must include guidance on energy conservation and on systems for producing energy which contribute to the objective of sustainable development".
I hope that my noble friend will give us some assurance, in referring to subsection (4) of the new clause, that in the guidance there will be some reference to the fact that it would be the intention of the agency to support the development of new technology in the use of energy and to encourage any developments in that direction.
I should say that I have an interest to declare in that I am president of the Combined Heat and Power Association which represents one of the leading areas within that development. We hope to see the Government, through the agency, give a little more support to that very important new technology.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I should like to offer my thanks to the Minister for the new clause. It seems to me that almost every point made at Committee stage has been quite cleverly taken up in the new clause. However, I suspect that we have a problem with "sustainable development". It is a problem raised by many noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Some years ago I read a book on environmental economics. In an appendix it listed at least 50 definitions; and it is still going strong, as it were. On the whole, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, the Government seem to be rather attached—as most people are—to the Brundtland definition. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, gave rather a good summary of it. In fact, it is a rather difficult definition to use in the shape of legislation because it ends up, in my phrase (which is not quite the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont) with the words, "without compromising the needs of future generations".
1628
How on earth do we, in all our wisdom, know what the needs of future generations will be? It is all right as a nice term of art in a book or something like that; but when it comes to legislation we have to be rather more careful. Maybe the answer lies along the lines of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we mean "environmentally sustainable". I suspect that we need to think about that; I am not too sure. Maybe it lies within the guidance, which can obviously expand on concepts. Even then, if the Government are attached to Mrs. Brundtland's definition, they have to foresee what our children are going to need. With the greatest respect to the Government, they may find it difficult.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to this new clause. Practically every noble Lord who spoke welcomed it.
In establishing the agency the Government have repeatedly emphasised that its creation is intended both to improve protection of the environment and to help regulated organisations through the adoption of more integrated approaches considering impacts on the environment as a whole, through a reduction in the number of different regulators and through improved consistency of regulation. It has an important role in taking forward the Government's policy on sustainable development. The proposed principal aim builds on the proposal in the previously published draft outline guidance and seeks to encapsulate this in a way which reflects the broad range of the agency's functions and minimises the difficulties to which I referred in Committee over incompatibilities with other enactments and in defining sustainable development.
In Amendment No. 29 the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to remove the reference to taking into account any likely costs. The noble Baroness pointed out that the principal aim previously published by the Government in the document on scope guidance under Clause 4 contained no such reference. The reason for the addition arises from the giving of statutory status to the aim. Sustainable development involves reconciling the needs of the environment with the needs of economic development. As such it necessarily involves consideration of costs as well as of the needs of the environment in terms of protection or enhancement. But the concept is not one on which the courts in England and Wales have previously needed to take a view; and, for reasons which we discussed in Committee, it is undesirable to seek to define it in this Bill. The inclusion of the reference to costs is therefore intended to ensure that the principal aim includes explicit recognition of both sides of the equation to reduce the risk of challenge in the courts from anyone who might seek to argue that sustainable development is to be interpreted exclusively in environmental terms.
In Amendment No. 30 the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to replace the duty on Ministers to give guidance to the agency with respect to objectives by one in which they must give guidance on how the agency is to achieve its aim. Clause 4(3) makes clear that the guidance given under subsection (2) must include guidance with respect to the contribution which the Ministers consider it appropriate for the agency to make towards achieving sustainable development. The

1629
guidance must therefore indeed include guidance on the aim. But Ministers will also need to go beyond that and give guidance to the agency on specific objectives. That is to say, the guidance should not be limited to how the aim is to be pursued, which is of course through the exercise of the agency's functions, but should also cover specific objectives within that aim.
In his Amendment No. 24 the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is proposing to replace the universally recognised phrase "sustainable development" by the unfamiliar term "sustainable use of resources". As the Prime Minister acknowledged in his foreword to the sustainable development strategy we published in January 1994, and as a number of noble Lords stated during Committee stage of this Bill, the phrase "sustainable development" is indeed difficult to define. But that does not mean that the international community and UK practitioners do not understand what issues are involved and recognise the areas where action needs to be taken.
Our 250-page strategy document set out the principles of sustainable development, reviewed the state of the UK environment and identified key trends and pressure points and the key sectors of the economy where new policy developments were needed and where market opportunities and growth points existed. It concluded with a discussion of what action could be taken to help achieve sustainable development.
Changing the term "sustainable development" would not help determine what needs to be done. Rather it would serve to confuse. Nationally and internationally we are moving nearer to a consensus on the action we need to take to preserve our fragile planet. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, when he suggested that one route—I am not sure that it was his preferred route—would be to put it into the guidance which we shall be issuing under Clause 4, which will help to progress that consensus yet further. I believe that changing the terminology now will not aid that process.
My noble friend Lord Wade, in speaking to Amendment No. 25, raised issues which are of key importance to sustainable development. The Government attach great importance to the efficient use of energy. It saves money which could be used to develop businesses, improve homes and living standards and boost the economy. It helps to protect the environment by reducing the threat of climate change. It helps us to carry forward our sustainable development policy, changing people's culture by promoting realistic ways of achieving development at lower cost to the environment.
But I cannot agree that energy conservation is of such overriding importance to sustainable development that advice on it must be included in all the guidance Ministers will wish to give to the agency on its objectives. Yet that would be the effect of my noble friend's amendment. When we need to give guidance on energy conservation, systems for producing energy and indeed energy efficiency generally, the Bill gives us the power to do so and requires the agency to take account of it. I agree that it will be necessary from time to time to consider what advice to give the agency on these matters; but not all the time.
1630
My noble friends Lord Mills and Lord Crickhowell spoke to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. They indicated that the amendments were tabled before they were able to see the amendment to Clause 4 that I tabled on Tuesday. I am delighted that I have been able, in that government amendment, to respond to the main points in Amendment No. 27 made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell during the Committee stage debate on this clause. I promised to look again at the proposal to make clear on the face of the Bill that the agency would be consulted on the guidance and that the guidance would be published; I am pleased that we have been able to achieve that in the government amendment. Indeed, our amendment goes further in requiring wide consultation, not just with the agency but with other appropriate bodies or persons. Our amendment does not mirror completely the amendments tabled by my noble friends; but I do not consider that the Bill needs, for example, to require a notice about availability of the guidance to be placed in the London Gazette or to specify that, as well as being published, copies of the guidance should be made available to the public. I hope however that your Lordships' House will agree that we have met the main intention behind the amendment.
I consider Amendment No. 26 to be unnecessary. I have already made available at Committee stage copies of our draft of the outline guidance to be issued under Clause 4. It declares our intention to make a draft of the full text available in time for consideration of the Bill in another place. In producing a final text, we shall wish to take full account of comments made on the draft in that place and from those others with an interest in the contribution the environment agency is to make towards achieving sustainable development. There can be no doubting our determination to make progress on the production of the guidance and therefore no need to seek to require the Government to issue the first set of guidance within 12 months of the coming into force of the Act. I ask my noble friend therefore to consider carefully what I have said and not to push me further on the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, in giving a warm welcome to the depositing of the new clause, also gave notice that at a further stage of the Bill she will be tabling an amendment to bring the guidance under approval by Parliament. Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would make it subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, has said. I shall consider very carefully whether that is the route that the Government should be taking. I certainly take note that we shall be faced with that at Third Reading.
The noble Baroness asked me what "taken as a whole" means. I hope that my answer is not too Delphic. We mean by that an integrated analysis of all the environmental media of air, land and water and that judgments should be taken in the round and be based on overall factors and should not be preoccupied by the minutiae of the detail. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will be entirely happy with that

1631
explanation. I think it would be better to separate the overall aim of the agency in Clause 4 and to leave Clause 7 as it seeks to achieve the conservation duties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about costs. Amendment No. 124 inserts a definition into Clause 53 of costs as costs to any person and costs to the environment. That is probably the right way to leave it.
During the debate in Committee a number of noble Lords made clear their concerns over the extent to which Clause 4 as originally drafted could give Ministers the ability fundamentally to change the aims and objectives of the agency after the Bill had been enacted and thereby in effect change its central purpose. There was broad pressure for a strategic purpose to be included on the face of the Bill. In moving his Amendment No. 147, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that he was content with the principal aim of the agency which the Government had proposed, but believed that it was essential that it was incorporated in some way within the Bill. The government amendments are designed to respond to the noble Lord's concerns. With the explanation I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment and that the House will feel able to support the Government's new clause and amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he be so good as to comment on the suggestion which I made and which two other noble Lords, as I understood it, supported that whatever else "sustainable" means it must in the context of this Bill include environmentally sustainable.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was trying to point out that the concept of sustainable development should be left to the guidance produced by Ministers which will be subject to review. I do not believe it would be right for me to indicate what I believe sustainable development to be. Especially after Pepper v. Hart, it would be better left to the guidance which will be issued by Ministers.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to seek to sum up all the points that have been made and there is much that will bear consideration when we come to read the report of this debate. I am not sure whether the Minister's proposal for sustainable development to be dealt with by guidance tempts noble Lords towards the amendments about parliamentary scrutiny which I put down but did not move or whether, having highlighted this issue, when we come to it at Third Reading they will feel that they cannot face debating sustainable development in that context. However, it is clearly a matter to which we shall return.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for complimenting me on my drafting. It was intended to be more than just mere form. He described it as rarefied. Perhaps I may say to him that it was because of his careful analysis at the previous stage that I pursued the
1632
matter, having been given the confidence to do so. I thank the Minister for taking so many points on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 29, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 28 agreed to.
Clause 6 [General provisions with respect to water]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert ("by day and by night").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, introduced an amendment about light pollution which relates to the destruction of the beauty of the landscape at dusk and at night by powerful artificial lighting. This issue has been taken up by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, of which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is the distinguished president. It is an important issue. To date it has tended to be the case that planning authorities and others have not regarded pollution of the night landscape as an important issue.
In Committee there was considerable support for the idea behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I am therefore pressing it again in a different form. The amendments offer a route by which we can make it absolutely clear that this is an important issue and that the agency should be concerned about it.
Lord Moran: My Lords, in Committee I strongly supported the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and spoke at length about it. I shall not repeat now what I said then. I should like very much to support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Northbourne. It is extremely important. We are considering conservation. Any night when one drives through the countryside and sees the orange glow of sodium light in every village in every part of the country one sees the appalling effect of this environmental degradation. Something needs to be done about it. It is quite right that the environment agency should concern itself with these matters. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am looking very closely at the wording of paragraph (a) of Clause 6(1) as it stands which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wishes to amend and amplify.
One must bear in mind that as the clause stands at the moment the words "natural beauty and amenity" are followed by the words "of inland and coastal waters". That would seem to cover the word "water" in the noble Lord's amendment. The words "land associated with such waters" would seem to cover "landscape". The noble Lord has in his favour the fact that the Bill says nothing about the sky, but his amendment does.
I agree that the beauty of the landscape can vary very much by day and by night and in different atmospheric conditions. The amendment makes that clear. I sometimes believe that it is a little dangerous to impose words of limitation. These words do that in that they seek to define the expression "natural beauty". From the

1633
drafting point of view it is not an altogether easy matter, but I believe that what the noble Lord has proposed about the beauty of the sky should not be overlooked.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that I believe I made a mistake in not saying that I was also speaking to the three other amendments which stand in my name on this subject. I apologise for that.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Notwithstanding the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, I believe that the noble Lord's amendments are a much neater way of putting forward the need to control pollution by excessive light than my amendment at Committee stage. Noble Lords may remember that my amendment referred merely to light pollution which was not wholly understood.
The key is that what we are talking about now is something relatively new. Just as 20 years ago relatively few of us spoke about the environment as such—or certainly not in the way we do now. Today relatively few people have taken on board the very undesirable effect which excessive light can have on the night sky and on the beauty of the countryside. It is for that reason that, as we have this excellent and important Bill in front of us, this seems the moment that this new, and what I believe will become an increasingly important dimension, should be included for the first time in statute. I am not saying that the noble Lord necessarily has the wording precisely right. But I hope that my noble friend will respond positively to it. Perhaps he will come back either before Third Reading or in the other place with some means of introducing what I am quite certain is going to be a significant factor in the coming years and decades.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I was the person who misunderstood the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, at the previous stage of the Bill. As I now understand the amendments, I am an enthusiastic supporter of them in their current form.
Lord Elton: My Lords, whether my noble friend accepts this amendment or not, I hope that he will take the opportunity to look at the growing problem of light pollution. There are steadily growing ribbons of horrible phosphorescent, orange light along our motorways. It was first at the junctions and now it is spreading out. I realise that there are safety factors involved, but there must be better ways of lighting our major roads than suddenly making them offensive not just for the one or two miles by daylight but for 15 or 20 miles if they are in a valley below downland and so forth. I hope that my noble friend will do that.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we on these Benches certainly support the tone of these amendments and hope that the Minister will find some way of meeting the point involved.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I risk being a spoilsport. Amendments Nos. 31, 39, 41 and 44 in the
1634
name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seek to ensure that the agency's conservation and recreation duties under Clauses 6 and 7 are to apply both to day and to night. I think I understand the concerns prompting these amendments, reiterated by many noble Lords, but I am not convinced that they are necessary. Amendment No. 31 in particular is extremely wide and would have among its effects a duty on the agency to promote the amenity by night of coastal and inland waters and associated land.
The agency's duty under Clause 6(1) (a), and the agency's and Ministers' duties under Clause 7(1) (a), (b) and (c) (ii) are not time limited: in other words, they do not cease to have these duties in the hours of darkness. This is not spelt out on the face of the Bill simply because it does not need to be. However, I suspect that the noble Lord's concern is perhaps a little more specific.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke in the discussion at Committee stage on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford on what has been described as light pollution and his concern to maintain the rural countryside by night as well as by day. Should the noble Lord's intention be to bring increased controls to bear in respect of light pollution, I can assure him that the Government have for some time been aware of the potential problems which can be caused by the inappropriate design and use of some lighting schemes.
We believe that the most appropriate way to tackle these problems is by education and guidance: for example, DoE Circular 5/94, Planning Out Crime, sets out the planning aspects of security lighting.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that at night, with low light levels, the driver's visibility is reduced, resulting in a disproportionately high number of accidents when compared to daytime accident numbers. Road lighting is provided to improve visibility and therefore to reduce the number of night-time accidents. Research indicates an effective reduction in the number of accidents of up to 30 per cent. with the provision of road lighting. These are important statistics. We should regard those factors as being on one side of the balance when we are concerned about the environmental side of light pollution.
The Department of Transport's booklet, Road Lighting and the Environment, published in 1993, shows how well-designed street lighting can achieve its main objective of road safety with minimum environmental impact. I can assure noble Lords that we shall look for appropriate opportunities to press home the importance of the sensitive location and use of lighting and will continue to keep under review whether other measures might usefully be taken to minimise its excessive use.
I would reiterate, however, that the agency's duties already apply so as to have effect both by night and during the day, and that these amendments would not add anything to the Bill which is not already implicit in it. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Moran: My Lords, will the Minister consider asking the Department of Transport, when it rightly considers aspects of road safety and reducing the

1635
number of road accidents—which I am sure we all support—to use white lighting rather than yellow, sodium lighting?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly bring the noble Lord's words to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have read the research to which the noble Viscount refers. The figure of 30 per cent. savings in accidents has some justification. However, what is not at all well researched is the possibility of alternative solutions such as putting barriers down the centre of roads so that drivers are not subjected to the glare of oncoming lights. There has been only one rather inadequate piece of research on that.
However, leaving that aside, I am most grateful to the Minister for the assurances which he has given that the agency will be responsible for the beauty of the landscape, for water and, I hope, the sky, by day and by night. This is an important commitment by the Government for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 3, after ("recreational") insert ("and navigational").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Second Reading, I voiced the concern of those who used the navigations and the waterways that their interests might well be squeezed between the larger, and admittedly more important, building blocks that will go towards making up the new agency. To try to diminish that, I have endeavoured to raise the profile of navigation in a number of amendments, including one in Committee which would have provided a duty to maintain, improve and develop the navigations on a similar basis to fisheries. The Minister did not think fit to accept that amendment, and I am mindful of his advice that the basic intention of the Bill is to transfer the existing NRA powers and duties to the new agency. I should like to make it quite clear that I do not wish to increase any financial commitment for the new agency or for users.
With that in mind, I am proposing a new amendment which would specifically define navigational interests as well as recreation in order to highlight the promotion of navigation as a recreation. I recognise that my drafting is open to question and that the amendment may well go rather further than I am intending, but I am open to considering any form of wording at a later stage which might achieve the required objective.
I have previously paid tribute to the National Rivers Authority, and I should like now to compliment the regional managers who are involved with navigation on the way in which they have tackled their responsibilities. I also welcome the identification of an NRA board member to have specific responsibility for navigation, and the national meeting of user groups which I believe is due to take place next week.
I suggest that the promotion of navigation would be in line with those initiatives and would not place an undue financial commitment on the new agency. As it would
1636
be the agency's management that decides priorities, it would not seek to give navigation a priority over other activities, including fishing. I feel that the recent moves by NBA's head office, to which I have just referred, indicate an increased awareness of the importance of navigation and I believe that the new promotional duty would build upon that awareness. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. It is important that navigation on inland waterways should receive its proper due. From all that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said about the NRA, it is obviously working in the right direction. However, it seems to me that so many other activities are encompassed within the clause that it is only reasonable that navigation, which is increasingly important to our inland waterways, should receive its mention in the statute. Therefore, even if my noble friend the Minister wants to alter the wording of the amendment, I hope that he will accept the principle of it.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. In terms of the number of people who are involved as suppliers and customers, and in terms of the geographical area of our inland waterways, it seems unfortunate that the legislation seems to leave the waterways as the Cinderella of the family of responsibilities. If the Government cannot accept the wording of this amendment, I very much hope that they will suggest something similar.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in his amendment. The emphasis of the Bill is placed so heavily on recreation that "navigation" in this sense probably has a more professional air than is intended in the context of "recreation".
As the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as governor of the Isle of Wight is only too well aware, in many coastal areas there is permanently a very difficult and edgy confrontation between professional and amateur users of the waters. That relationship is working extremely well in the Solent with a good deal of common sense being used on both sides. Perhaps it is a little less successful in terms of fishing and the recreational users of the waters.
If the environment is to be protected properly, the different interests of those two groups—the professional users, who may be said to use it for navigation; and the recreational users, who may not mind so much where they go provided that they go somewhere—must both be recognised and should be included in the Bill.
Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I should like to ask the Minister a question which perhaps goes a little further. If we do not include in the Bill some words such as those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, are we not in danger of leaving those who wish to promote navigation completely at a disadvantage as against the environmentalists who wish to stop it? Surely that is not what we are trying to achieve.

1637
I have a further point. In the case of canals, it is frequently the users for navigational purposes who ensure that the canals are kept navigable by keeping down weeds and other forms of pollution.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I have no quarrel at all with the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Greenway in an extremely moderate and persuasive manner. It is important that the new agency should balance carefully the conflicting interests in some areas between navigation and fisheries, and navigation and conservation. The NRA has been doing that. We should at all times be careful not to push that balance in one direction or another. The NRA has been excellent in that regard. It has been both conscientious and careful. I am sure that the environment agency will be equally careful.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and other noble Lords in asking the House to consider amending Clause 6 to draw attention to the agency's duty to promote our inland and coastal waters for navigation for recreational purposes, although, I am advised that technically, as worded, the amendment would apply to navigation for all purposes. That presents a problem when we are talking about coastal waters.
I have to say that I see no reason to expect that the agency would not promote water recreation any less efficiently than the National Rivers Authority. Clearly, leisure boating is a recreational use of water and the duty to promote such uses where desirable is already included in Clause 6(1) (c), and is a duty which we expect the agency to take seriously. I believe that the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, are already being taken care of by that duty.
As I have said, although we have considered the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, carefully, the word "navigational" presents difficulties. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is right. We need to have a balance between the desires of the various sides who use our waterways.
More widely, noble Lords will be aware that the Government have recently published a consultation paper, as I have mentioned, seeking views on the future arrangements for the management of the navigations which are currently operated by British Waterways and the NRA. We are looking to the responses to that consultation to advise us on what changes, if any, should be made in respect of those navigations. Prior to that, we are not looking to make any changes to present responsibilities.
Having said that, although I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported me in the amendment. I must advise my noble friend Lord Moran that it has never been the aim of the boating interests to try to achieve more than what the fishing interests have already. My noble friend mentioned a balance. That is what we are anxious to achieve. It is to
1638
that end that I have been endeavouring to raise the profile of navigation—not perhaps to the level that fisheries already enjoy, but to somewhat nearer that.
I am slightly disappointed by what the Minister has said. I take his point about the consultation document, but my concern is how long it will take to get the replies and for the Government to assess them and decide which way they will go. In the meantime, we may well have the new agency. I am concerned about bridging the gap before we can move forward perhaps to an ultimate solution as a result of the review document. I should like to consider what all noble Lords have said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again no earlier than a quarter to eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Bill
7.1 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I should first like to congratulate my honourable friend the Member for Macclesfield, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, on having taken up this Bill and got it through the House of Commons in very quick time and brought it before your Lordships' House. I am honoured to have been asked by the British Olympic Association and my honourable friend to pilot this Bill through the House. I admit that my honourable friend and I do not agree on every item of policy; but on this matter we are as one.
The Bill simply seeks to protect the Olympic symbol, the Olympic motto and the Olympic words from unauthorised commercial exploitation. Clause 1(1) creates a new statutory right called the Olympics association right. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to grant the British Olympic Association an exclusive licence to exploit the Olympics association right commercially, thus giving statutory force to the common law rights of the British Olympic Association. The BOA, as the national olympic committee, is responsible for all aspects of the British team at the Olympic Games, such as organising transport and providing the necessary kit and back-up support. This is an increasingly expensive exercise. However, the BOA's role is now much wider than this, since it also provides extensive services to potential British competitors of all Olympic sports over the whole four-year period between games. (I remind your Lordships that the next games will be held in Atlanta in the United States next year). These are all aimed at ensuring that the team is as well prepared as possible for international competition.

1639
The standards of such competition increase all the time, and this puts added pressure on the need for resources. The services that the BOA provides are acknowledged by the governing bodies to be vital for our top competitors. The BOA receives no government funds. All the money that it is able to raise is spent on supporting the team and providing services to British sport. It is a self-help, stand alone organisation whose ability to provide and maintain existing levels of service to competitors depends largely on its capability to raise sponsorship.
If we are to maintain and improve British international performances through expenditure of the commercial income available through Olympic sponsorship, statutory protection from unauthorised commercial exploitation is vital. Such protection will give sponsors the comfort of knowing that they have a legally protected right and make control of any unauthorised use easier. It is an unfortunate fact that such unauthorised use has become increasingly prevalent, reflecting the perceived value of a commercial association with the Olympic movement. This poses a serious threat to the BOA's fund-raising ability and to the flow of necessary funds for British sport. An example of such unauthorised use is where a company, in competition with a BOA sponsor, seeks to promote sales of its products or services using either the Olympic symbol or words without authority. This has a number of effects: it damages the effectiveness of the BOA sponsor's official promotion; it exposes the BOA to possible legal action by that sponsor; the BOA incurs the cost of taking action against the unauthorised user; it damages the ability of the BOA to attract new sponsors; and devalues the rights which the BOA can offer to future sponsors. A number of examples of that have occurred over the years.
The Bill contains a number of savings which provide that certain uses of the Olympic symbols and words are not infringements of the Olympics association right. The intention is to allow existing legitimate and honest uses to continue; in other words, those uses which do not exploit an association with the Olympic movement or mislead the public into thinking that the user is authorised to use the symbol or words. These savings are not intended to give unscrupulous companies or traders a way to avoid infringing the Olympics association right while benefiting from a dishonest or unauthorised association. The United Kingdom is one of the very few countries that does not already give statutory protection to the Olympic symbols. Since the BOA is also one of the few national Olympic committees not to receive any government funds, potential British competitors currently operate at a significant disadvantage compared with competitors from other countries with whom they have to compete.
The Bill has no negative revenue implications for the Treasury and is neither complicated nor controversial. It has cross-party support, as evidenced by the sponsors in the other place, who include: the honourable Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, Mr. Tom Pendry, the Official Opposition spokesman on sport; the right honourable Member for Manchester Gorton, Mr. Gerald Kaufman,
1640
chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage; and the honourable Member for Fife North-East, Mr. Menzies Campbell, for the Liberal Democrats, who himself is a former distinguished Olympic athlete. I shall not go through the rest of the sponsors in the other place, who are many, because I do not wish to disappoint any of them. I just mention those three to give an indication of the cross-party support for this Bill.
I am glad to say that the Bill also has the support of the Department of National Heritage and the unanimous support of the sporting community. The Bill will improve the BOA's ability to support and improve our potential Olympic competitors and ensure that the money raised from Olympic sponsorship is spent in the way that it should be; namely, on sport and present and future British competitors. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Donoughue. He simply asks me to say on his behalf that the Bill has his warmest support and he wishes it well.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one of those happy occasions when the entire House can unite behind something. A Bill of this nature is probably long overdue. I believe that the only thing to be said which perhaps strikes a sour note here is that this Bill should have been on the statute book at the time of the last Olympics, or perhaps the Olympics before that. Having said that, at least it has arrived for the next games. As a result, something as important as the Olympic Games, as a symbol of unity and sporting excellence, should receive any financial reward to be gained from its unique symbols.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on presenting this Bill to your Lordships. Like him, I agree that it is an important Bill. Of course, it will delight both sides that it entails no expense at all.
I believe it is worth telling the House the significance of this Bill to all athletes. Children are great spenders when it comes to shoes, tracksuits, ties or any form of equipment. They love to have the latest sophisticated signs. They love to tell you that they represent Arsenal, Chelsea or (in my case) Bristol Rovers. But the five circles are more important than any individual team. Children look upon them as the absolute peak of achievement. While no one has been breaking the law, in the past people have taken advantage of the symbol and brought out their own tracksuits, T-shirts and shoes. They have called them Olympic shoes, Olympic tracksuits or Olympiad, which is one of the many words that your Lordships see in the Bill.
The money that goes on those (shall we call them rogue products?) is a large sum. The BOA is merely asking—it is doing no more—as I understand it that it alone has the privilege of using those five circles. The

1641
Government, represented by my noble friend the Minister, should be leaping up and down with delight, because that man sitting smiling away on the Front Bench has never given us a penny. He has come here this evening, which is very kind of him. He will no doubt be late for dinner as a result. But he has never given the BOA one cent. What is more, we have brought in the Bill to ensure that he never will give us one cent—not a penny. Our purpose is to ensure that every penny gained by the Olympic symbol in any form will go to those athletes who require help.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying not a penny less, not a penny more?
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I try to avoid advertising, but I am grateful to the noble Lord.
I hope that noble Lords will realise that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that from whatever is produced with this symbol on it, every penny gained will go to the BOA. As my noble friend said, that money will ensure that our athletes have as good a chance as the Americans or the Russians; that that money is spent on them and does not get into commercial hands. That is what the Bill is about.
It may interest noble Lords to know the figures. The BOA has worked out that it received only one-third of the revenue it could have received if the Bill had been enacted previously. The Bill is important to everyone.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon mentioned Mr. Tom Pendry. It is nice that the Bill is an all-party measure. I do not believe we shall find anyone who does not want it to shoot through the House. But I took the opportunity to speak to the Opposition spokesman in the Corridor. I asked him, "Is there anything in the Bill that worries you? Do you want anything discussed or changed?". "No", he said, "Get it through". So we know exactly where the Opposition stand on the Bill.
My noble friend was rather casual about one or two of the sponsors, not least Mr. Menzies Campbell who represents the Liberal Democrats. I feel it my duty, and nothing less, to remind my noble friend that Mr. Menzies Campbell was captain of the Great Britain athletics team when I had the privilege of running in it. I still call him sir. He also has instructed me to come here today to ensure that the Bill goes through. I wish to ensure that not one of your Lordships will present any opposition.
I come finally to the Bill's sponsor in the other place. I refer to Mr. Nicholas Winterton. I should like to place on record, with my noble friend the Minister present, how nice it is at last to find something upon which he and I can agree. There is not just all-party agreement on the Bill: we have all-rebels-of-every-form agreement. I can see nothing for my noble friend the Minister to do except to say, "We will get it through as fast as possible". In return, we will say to my noble friend, "We shall not be requiring any money". I thank noble Lords.
7.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor):
1642
My Lords, I am delighted to speak tonight in support of this Bill which has been so effectively introduced by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara.
As my noble friend made clear, the Bill has the support of the Department of National Heritage. The Government first made a commitment to legislation to protect the rights to commercial exploitation of the Olympic symbols, motto and associated words—"Olympic", "Olympian" and "Olympiad"—as part of their support for the bid made by Manchester to host the Year 2000 Olympic Games.
That was a short-term reason for our support. Despite Manchester's sad failure, which we all regret, a longer term reason for pursuing the legislation remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. That is that British Olympic sport will stand to gain significantly from a measure which will improve the ability of the British Olympic Association to support Olympic competitors and ensure that money raised from Olympic sponsorship is available to be invested in sport and on the support and preparation of British Olympic competitors.
We may wish to put forward a further Olympic bid for the future. The Sports Council is working with representatives of the BOA, local authority associations and other interested parties to develop a strategy to encourage more major sporting events to this country and to ensure that our major cities are well placed to host them. In that regard, the advent of the National Lottery offers the scope for providing a sporting infrastructure of world-class quality. The legislation is a necessary prerequisite of any successful Olympic bid for the future.
Leaving aside a home-grown games, we need to ensure that our athletes are as well prepared as possible for the forthcoming Olympics in 1996 in Atlanta and in the year 2000 in Sydney. As I have said, the extra funding derived from the marketing rights to the Olympic symbols and the associated words in this country which the Bill would bring would enable the BOA, which depends entirely on the private sector for funding, as my noble friend Lord Archer explained so well, to develop further sporting excellence in Britain and help ensure the continuing success of our participants in the games.
I am aware that concerns were expressed in another place about the effect which the Bill may have on the ability of small businesses to continue to trade under names which contain the protected Olympic words. The Bill already provides some important safeguards. Business uses of the symbol, motto and protected Olympic words which are already in existence when the Bill comes into force as an Act would be fully protected. That is made clear in Clause 4(9), and Clause 49(10) puts beyond doubt the use of the protected words as part of an existing company or business name.
However, concerns have been expressed about the position of small businesses which may be created after the Act comes into force, particularly if the use of the associated words could be said to imply an association with the Olympic Games or with Olympic qualities such as speed or excellence. Possible examples could be companies which might choose to register themselves as, for example, Olympic Bus, Cars and Electronics.

1643
Without knowing more about the circumstances of such companies, I imagine that the association created by that use could well be with qualities of speed, power and efficiency associated with the Olympic Games and there could therefore be an infringement under the Act.
My right honourable friend in another place agreed to consider those concerns and we intend to bring forward an amendment to the Bill which would enable the Secretary of State, by order, to provide that a specified category of uses of the protected words should not constitute an infringement of the rights in the Bill.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for intervening. I shall be interested to read the amendment when it comes before the House. Will he be kind enough to confirm that there will be no conditions under which the five circles can be used by anyone other than the BOA?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We do not yet have an amendment. We are looking at the concerns that were raised in another place. I shall take his point on board.
We want to ensure that a small company which is unaware of the Act, as many small businesses may be, and trades, for example, as Olympic Flowers, or some such name, which is obviously not something which will compete with the laudable intentions of raising money for Olympic athletes and protecting Olympic symbols, would not necessarily be caught. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is looking very closely at the possibility of bringing forward an amendment.
Perhaps I may explain that such a power might allow the Secretary of State to permit uses for the purpose of a certain class of businesses such as small restaurants, or for specified trade uses for the purposes of an undertaking; for example, use in a campaign against an Olympic Games or drug taking in an Olympic sport. I am confident that such an arrangement would go very far in ensuring the further protection of small businesses and other reasonable uses of the Olympic words which I am sure we all wish to secure.
We are also concerned to ensure that the Bill goes as far as possible to protect the rights which we propose should be vested in the British Olympic Association. That is why we are considering a second amendment to Clause 4(1) (b) of the Bill to ensure that any use of a literary or artistic work in relation to other goods and services—for example, the production of T-shirts which, as my noble friend said, is a most important market, or tracksuits—infringes the Olympic Association right. It is already the intention on the face of the Bill that the Olympic Association right is infringed if such works are reproduced for the purpose of advertising or promoting goods or services. By extension, it is surely the intention of Parliament that the promotion of goods and services includes any sale by reference to the Olympic symbol, motto or protected words. In the interests of maximum exploitation of the commercial rights for the BOA, we are concerned to put that beyond doubt and are, therefore, considering the scope for such an amendment. The BOA supports the thrust of that amendment.
1644
The Government are fully behind the Bill. Our concern in considering amendments is to be sure that interests which need to be protected are protected and that the British Olympic Association is given the maximum benefit from the legislation, which ultimately must mean the maximum benefit for British sport. I am very glad to welcome the Bill this evening.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Addington, for their support. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare who made a striking speech on the matter. However, I should add that there was no need for him to dress up for the occasion. Nevertheless, the fact that my noble friend chose to do so shows the importance of the Bill.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend; but it is important that noble Lords should realise that it is not the "night job" that I am going on to. In fact, I shall be addressing the Vauxhall Conservative Association which only needs a swing of 38 per cent. to remove the Labour majority. That is what I shall be doing this evening.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. However, it is still nice for the passage of the Bill that my noble friend is so dressed. He described the situation extremely well. I should also pay tribute to him for all the campaigning that he has done in the past to get the Bill to its present stage.
I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his remarks about the Bill. Obviously, I am slightly disappointed that there will have to be some amendments made to it. I can understand the reasons for them. However, my understanding, so far as concerns small companies, is that if, for example, you are a small company and you call yourself, "Olympic Pizzas", or something like that, that would be fine: but if you call yourself, "Olympic Pizzas, as used by British Olympic Athletes" you would be caught. I believe that that is quite right and proper.
I ask my noble friend for one assurance. The fact that amendments are to be made to the Bill means that we will have a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading in this House and then the legislation will have to go back to the other place. I only ask my noble friend to give us an assurance that the Government will find time for consideration of the Bill in another place so that it will get on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until fifteen minutes before eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.24 until 7.45 p.m.]

Environment Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 6.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 16, leave out ("the obligation to develop water resources") and insert ("any obligation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return with this amendment, and two other amendments standing in my name, to the important subject of water and the conservation of water. Amendment No. 33 would widen the reference in line 16 on page 7 of the Bill from,
"the obligation to develop water resources"?
to, "any obligation". Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 to Schedule 18 would place on Ofwat and on the water undertakers respectively a duty to conserve and promote the "efficient use of water". This matter was of course raised in Committee. I have corresponded with my noble friend the Minister and he wrote me an encouraging and acceptable reply as regards the Government's intention to do something in the nature of giving a remit to Ofwat and to the water providers on this important matter of water conservation. In his letter to me my noble friend made a reference, interestingly, to reservoirs. He stated he was not quite sure whether or not I was in favour of reservoirs. I think that reservoirs in this connection are absolutely crucial to what we are trying to include in this Bill. I believe they help us to understand better our earlier discussion on sustainable development. There can be no better example of sustainable development than the need to conserve water.
One can either save water from other uses, or ensure that the water which is taken does not deplete the environment through, for example, being taken out of aquifers with the disastrous effects that that has. Reservoirs are a prime example of sustainable development in that water which would otherwise go into the sea is taken from the reservoirs and used where it is needed rather than taking water from aquifers. I am very much in favour of using water from full reservoirs and of using water which would otherwise go into the sea. Of course the location of the reservoirs is another matter. That is an example of sustainable development; it is also an example of the crucial need to conserve what will become an increasingly scarce resource in this country; namely, water. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some inkling of what he may propose, either at Third Reading, or perhaps in another place, to put into the Bill to meet the anxieties that some noble Lords—I believe on both sides of the House—have on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, proposes, and his general theme. My only doubt is the doubt that I expressed at Committee stage when this matter was discussed; namely, whether laying a duty on Ofwat to promote the efficient use of water would open the way for Ofwat to insist on metering. That is the problem that
1646
we ran up against in Committee. As the noble Viscount knows, we are totally opposed to giving Ofwat a power to impose on water undertakers a duty to meter.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford would widen the proviso which states 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 under Section 37 of the Water Industry Act 1991 so that the proviso would cover all their obligations flowing from that section.
This is primarily a question of drafting. I share the aim of the noble Lord that the agency's duties should not displace those of the water undertakers. We believe that the present drafting of Clause 6(2), which follows that of the existing provisions, achieves that aim. We therefore see no reason for change. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment No. 278 proposed by my noble friend amends Section 3 of the Water Industry Act and would place a duty on the Secretary of State, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Director-General of Water Services and every water undertaker, to comply with a requirement to further the conservation of water resources and promote water efficiency when considering proposals that relate to a water undertaker's functions.
Amendment No. 279 improves on my noble friend's earlier attempt during the Committee stage of this Bill. However, the amendment tabled here is still deficient in that the substitution proposed for Section 37(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991 will remove the duty water undertakers have under Section 37(1) (a) to make arrangements for the provision of water supplies to premises in their area and make supplies available to persons who demand them, and under Section 37(1) (b) remove their duty to maintain, improve and extend the water mains and other pipes in their area. I do not think any of us would wish to contemplate such a relaxation in the duties of water undertakers.
I remind noble Lords of the earlier debates on 19th January and 14th February. I said then that we were sympathetic to the important issue of water conservation and the proposal for water undertakers to be given a duty to promote the efficient use of water. I gave a commitment to consider, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, whether it should be amended to introduce provisions about water conservation. That action is in hand, as I indicated on the previous occasion.
I understand the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, indicated on that occasion and repeated tonight. We are considering whether any extension is required to the duties and powers of water companies and the Director-General of Water Services to promote the economic and efficient use of water among consumers. We are wholly in favour of those objectives. If necessary, we shall bring forward appropriate amendments in another place.

1647
Although I sympathise with some of the aims of the amendments, I believe many of them to be deficient and unnecessary. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, all that I can say is that we shall look forward with interest to what the Government bring forward in respect of what I regard as a very important subject and objective. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Addison Viscount Addison moved Amendment No. 34:
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 these may be adversely affected by its actions.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at Committee stage I spoke to two amendments designed to help safeguard the interests of landowners who suffer subsidence and other damage to their land and businesses through the activities of major water abstractions. Some noble Lords may subsequently have seen the issue well reported and discussed in an edition of "Country File" on BBCI last Sunday 26th February.
I return to the issue now because I believe that the Minister may be able to give a more encouraging reply than he was able to give in Committee. Subsequent to that debate I wrote to the Minister giving fuller details of cases in which damage has occurred consequent on water abstraction. I also outlined some of the legal advice which has been received on those cases. I offered several possible solutions to those difficulties, or options meriting further study in striving to find an acceptable way forward. The current law is quite unsatisfactory on these matters.
I hope that the Minister, if he is not able to offer immediate solutions, will at least be able to undertake to examine the issue thoroughly with a view to proposing suitable amendments to the Bill in another place.
At Committee stage I moved an identical amendment to Amendment No. 280, which would remove what I see as an unfair and discriminatory provision within the Water Resources Act 1991. I refer to the power conferred upon the NRA by Section 57 of that Act to curtail direct water abstraction for spray irrigation. By exercising that power the NRA can drastically affect farm businesses, particularly those producing high-value horticultural crops to exacting standards. In contrast, other commercial users of water such as car washes are protected from such drastic measures. Their use of water, which may be equally critical for the environment in times of drought, can only be curtailed through the imposition of a drought order. There is no question of an overnight cut-off for them.
I was grateful for the support which several noble Lords gave to my amendment at Committee stage. However, I was disappointed with the response of my noble friend the Minister. Effectively, all he was able to offer was the statement that the Section 57 provisions are only one among several other provisions to manage drought conditions, and the fact that they exist does not
1648
necessarily mean that they should be used first. I hope that having reflected on the debate at Committee stage the Minister may be able to be a little more helpful in replying to the following points.
First, will he confirm that the decision to exercise the powers granted by Section 57 of the 1991 Act will be subject to the requirements under Clause 37 of this Bill to take account of costs and benefits? One group of irrigators who suffered a total ban in East Anglia halfway through the growing season in the recent drought estimated losses at £10 million. The ban meant that they could not finish their crops to the standard required and they had to suffer reduced prices, if they were able to salvage a marketable crop at all. In addition they also had the tag of unreliable supplier attached to their businesses and, as all suppliers know, supermarket buyers cannot and do not deal with unreliable suppliers.
Secondly, in these days when the NRA at any one time has an immense amount of information available to it on the water resources situation, there should be some possibility of advance planning of irrigation needs and consultation with licence holders over the possibility of bans being introduced. The NRA in East Anglia learnt some valuable lessons from its early experience of the recent drought. It subsequently ensured that forecasts were made for irrigators at the beginning of each irrigation season of the likely water resources situation. It backed this up with an early-warning system to allow for advance planning if the water resources situation began to look more difficult. That helped farmers to plan their use of spray irrigation, and that in turn may have helped to avoid the need for subsequent all-out bans with their disastrous consequences for farming businesses and the economy of the rural areas affected.
That experience should be translated into a national planning and early-warning system in which both the agency and irrigators can work together to ensure the most effective management of water resources to satisfy all needs in times of water shortage.
Thirdly, and finally, I should like to suggest that the Minister should include consideration of all these matters in the review which I understand is currently being undertaken of the scope of drought orders and the procedures relating to them. Moreover, it would be helpful if he could undertake to consult bodies representing irrigators to discuss these matters, and how best the current unsatisfactory situation may be improved.
The current provisions are discriminatory. We need to show the horticulture industry that the problem is recognised and that the Government are committed to redressing the balance to ensure greater fairness for water users all round. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I listened with a good deal of sympathy to what my noble friend said. I do not have too much difficulty with the general objective of his first amendment. I have difficulty with the wording. A clause which requires one to endeavour,
"to protect and safeguard the interests of any owners of land",

1649
raises the difficult question as to the extent to which one has to protect and safeguard those interests. A clause might refer to the agency having "proper regard to", or some such phrase. However, I have anxieties about the wording on the Marshalled List. It would make it very easy for landowners in a variety of situations to challenge the actions of the agency.
However, I wish to speak principally on the other amendment, relating to spray irrigation. One cannot help but have a good deal of sympathy with the problems faced in drought years. My noble friend referred to the efforts of the NRA to give advance warning, to consult, and to introduce arrangements which minimised those difficulties. At the same time, we learnt a lesson during those drought years. It was often precisely in those parts of the country where spray irrigation was carried out on an extensive scale that we saw some of the gravest threats to the environment. Noble Lords made representations to me in this House about the condition of wetlands and other vulnerable areas threatened by drought. There is a conflict of interest here. On the one hand one needs to protect the environment and, on the other, to protect the interests of farmers and landowners.
My noble friend suggested that there was a discriminatory system in operation. I am not sure that that is right. A clear distinction needs to be drawn regarding water abstracted from rivers and from under the ground, stored by water companies. Water companies make huge investments in their supply systems in order to achieve a reliable supply during dry periods. During such dry periods most of the water for their customers comes from storage in the systems rather than from the natural water environment. Therefore the supply of water by the water companies for such purposes as car washing does not have a direct and immediate impact on the water environment during drought periods.
Of course there is a price to be paid for that reliability. Those who obtain their water supplies from the water companies pay a great deal more than do those who are obtaining water directly from the water environment for spray irrigation. The impact of spray irrigation upon river flows in dry periods can be very considerable and arises very quickly. It can cause dramatic reductions in river flows. However, even if the agency obtained emergency drought permit powers, the time taken to obtain those powers is likely to be too long to enable the agency satisfactorily to protect the environment.
Many licences are already in existence where, in practice, the sources are over licensed, and therefore there is an even greater need to be able to vary the abstractions in order to prevent environmental damage. Most of those licences have been issued in the knowledge that their use can be restricted in drought conditions. They would not have been issued in the present form if that were not so. Therefore, without such powers, the amendment poses a serious threat to the environment.
For many years the Government and other organisations have been urging on those who are dependent on spray irrigation the construction of storage arrangements so that they can draw their water in winter, when there is usually plenty, for use during drought
1650
periods. My noble friend referred to losses of some £10 million occurring in an area during a specific period. That suggests to me that the turnover of those businesses must have been very considerable indeed. It seems to me that any industrial company manufacturing goods with that kind of turnover and profit or potential loss would invest a good deal in the necessary equipment to deal with that potential hazard. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that businesses which operate on that scale, supplying to the markets at the level of quality now demanded, must be expected to provide at least a significant part of their spray irrigation from winter drawn supplies which have been stored to meet the possibility of drought in summer.
I believe that before we move away from the present arrangements we need to be careful that we do not create a situation which would soon lead to strong complaints from many people—I suspect that they would include some noble Lords who have taken part in the debate—that an essential protection of the environment had been removed.
At some stage we may need to consider again the exact arrangements under which the licences have been issued. However, if we allowed the amendment to be carried, we should face a serious threat to the environment in times of drought.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to the amendment, as I did at Committee stage. There is a great deal of good sense in what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. However, he misses the point, which is that agriculture is treated as a poor relation in this respect relative to other industries. Other industries are not subject to having their water supplies suddenly cut off in this way. When. I used to be a producer of vegetables, it was a continual source of extreme annoyance to see the chemical factory down the road. We knew that it was drawing a million gallons a day; there was no attempt to stop that. I would wish to see some regulation which removed that manifest unfairness.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 34, moved by my noble friend Lord Addison, would require the agency in fulfilling their water resource duties to protect and safeguard the interests of landowners in so far as they may be affected by new abstractions.
As I said during Committee when my noble friend first raised the question, 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. The subsection provides the general back-up to the more specific functions dealt with elsewhere in the legislation.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question again at this stage of the Bill. It is a complex issue and, after further analysis, I have concluded that there is a case for a more detailed examination of these questions. Because of their complexity and the wide range of interests that would need to be consulted, I do not think that it would be practicable to develop any solutions during the course of this Bill. I am, however, prepared to undertake to publish a consultation paper on this subject, which

1651
would enable a proper consideration of this whole question to take place and, I hope, an agreed solution to be developed. On that basis, perhaps my noble friend will not seek to press Amendment No. 34.
Amendment No. 280, which again was moved by my noble friend, would, by repealing Section 57 of the Water Resources Act 1991, curtail the existing powers of the NRA to manage the effects of spray irrigation during drought conditions. Those powers form part of the armoury available to manage water resources during droughts, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The armoury includes hosepipe bans, changes in abstraction licences and the rules on compensation water. Because the powers on restricting spray irrigation are vested in the NRA, it does not mean that they are the first weapon to be used. I am also advised that they would be subject to Clause 37.
As I said about the proposals of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for drought permits, we favour the environment agency having a wider range of weapons in its control so that it can have a wider discretion in developing the appropriate response to any drought. We intend that amendments to that effect should be made to the Bill. I hope that, with those explanations, my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he has tackled and will continue to pursue my first amendment on extraction and the problems that exist. I believe that the helpful response to my amendments goes some way towards alleviating the fears of irrigators, in that a review will reduce the likelihood of irrigators justifiably becoming irritators! I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert:
("(b) it shall be the duty of the Agency to—

(i) provide and operate in the area of each regional and local Flood Defence Committee flood warning systems;

(ii) provide, install and maintain in such areas any necessary equipment required for the purpose of such systems;

(c) it shall be the duty of the Agency to issue a flood warning to all such persons and organisations specified in paragraph (d) below in a timely manner in the event that the systems established under paragraph (b) (i) above indicate that there is a threat from flooding to life, persons and property in any such area;
(d) the persons and organisations to whom a warning is to be issued in accordance with paragraph (c) above are emergency services, local authorities, statutory undertakers, local media and such other persons or organisations as may be from time to time so specified by the Minister by Order; and
(e) the power to make an order under paragraph (d) above shall be exercisable by the Minister by Statutory Instrument.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 seeks to establish a statutory duty to issue a flood alert or warn the public of impending flooding. At present there is no statutory duty on any organisation either to issue a flood alert or to warn the public. The
1652
NRA has existing powers—not duties—under Section 32 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 which it interprets as providing limited flood monitoring systems and the warning of police. Having myself had experience as chief superintendent of various riparian divisions in London, I am well aware that one sometimes receives rather belated flood warnings. The public in Chiswick, Battersea and other places where I have served believe that it is the fault of the police when cars are flooded or basements filled with water. The police service would be grateful if a statutory duty were imposed on some other organisation to initiate the flood warning in the first place.
Police forces can keep tables of tides and so on, but they cannot be aware of flood waters coming down vast rivers like the Thames from a long way up the Thames Valley. Those often lead to surges in water when the flood conflicts with a rising tide. So it is essential that those organisations which understand what is happening in terms of river flows should have monitoring systems a long way up the river. Then they can give sufficient warning to alert members of the public to remove their cars, put up flood boards or in some cases carry out more elaborate work to protect their lives and property. It is essential that there should be a statutory obligation on some organisation. In this case we suggest that it should be the environment agency which must provide flood warnings in time for appropriate action to be taken.
Therefore, I press the Minister to say what the Government's plans are in relation to providing flood alerts and warning the public of impending flooding. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I lived for the first 20 years of my life on Chiswick Mall, which is flooded in part at virtually every very high tide. I lived in a house to which it was impossible to gain access when the tide was high, thus, I fully understand the desirability of having flood warnings.
However, giving flood warnings is in some ways an unscientific and unreliable business. Within the past two or three weeks, we have had a surge on the Severn whose extent was not forecast even one or two hours before it occurred. The wind changed direction and the level rose about a metre above what had been reasonably forecast even an hour and a half earlier.
There is a problem in dealing with the matter. One must be cautious, therefore, about creating a duty which might impose obligations which cannot be fulfilled. Of course, it is desirable that the environment agency should play a major role in providing flood warnings, though the agency itself depends on other agencies to obtain the information on the weather, tide and so on.
A working group involving the NRA, MAFF and representatives from the Home Office, the police and local authorities, has been reviewing for some time the issue of flood warning systems. One of the problems that we face in the future is that there is a growing reluctance among chief constables and police authorities to carry out the duty of knocking on people's doors.

1653
That poses a problem because there is no way in which the agency will be adequately equipped with people who can do that. I note that the amendment does not require the environment agency to go down the road of individual warnings. It suggests that the warnings should be provided by the agency to local authorities and other bodies defined by the regulation.
A problem exists, because there is no doubt that, with all the financial difficulties that confront them, local authorities and police forces are reluctant to carry out the duties. The problem is not only to provide accurate warnings but also to have satisfactory arrangements which can be carried out through a number of organisations. The NRA has always accepted that it has a major role in operating flood warning systems. At present it passes the information and warnings to the police, who then alert local inhabitants, local authorities, the emergency services and so on. The NRA also issues media bulletins on flood events. Two pilot schemes are being run at present to examine the feasibility of the agency having a properly defined lead role.
The amendment raises a perfectly proper issue but I suspect that it imposes too rigid and confining a duty on the new agency. I hope that the Government will consider some form of requirement that is at least flexible enough to respond to the realities of the real world, in which we must face uncertainties. Otherwise there is a danger that the agency would incur legal obligations which could be costly and lead to court action.
There are other difficult issues to be resolved. For example, if the agency is to have an arrangement for doing as suggested, where will the money and resources come from? Would they be raised by precepts from the flood defence committees on local authorities? I do not know the answer to that, but the mere fact that one is bound to ask it suggests that complex issues need to be addressed. It is right for them to be considered by the Government, but I do not believe that they can be covered by passing such an amendment on this occasion.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, that was an interesting intervention but it had two difficulties. First, it seemed to confuse a warning with a prophecy. In his first remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that a warning might be given and then the wind might change and the warning would not be necessary. However, a warning is not a prophecy. A warning says: "Get ready; be prepared". There is no point in the noble Lord shaking his head. A warning means: "Be prepared for an eventuality which may or may not occur." If it occurs, you are in terrible difficulty, and if it does not occur you are in a situation of some modest happiness—
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I wish it was quite as simple as that. The difficulty is that if you are—
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this is Report stage, and therefore I believe that the intervention is out of order.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am not sure about that. I am quite happy for the noble Lord to intervene. Is it out of order? I am terribly sorry that I cannot deal with the noble Lord's point.
1654
There seemed to me to be a weakness in the noble Lord's comments, in his suggestion that the constabularies and others were reluctant to carry out the duties. I did not care for that very much. The amendment put down by my noble friend on the Front Bench contains a good deal of sense. If the sense required to be beefed-up a bit by funds and so on for the authorities, that would not be such a bad thing. I support the amendment quite strongly.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 6 introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would make it obligatory for the agency to operate flood warning systems throughout England and Wales and issue warnings to bodies named in the amendment or in an order made by the Minister.
It is obviously vital that clear and effective flood warning arrangements exist to protect the public. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated, quite rightly, that the Government have established a working group. I do not believe that I need say any more about that. He also indicated that new arrangements are being trialed in the Isle of Wight and in Lincolnshire this year. Once the results are to hand, the working group is expected to put forward recommendations as to how the present arrangements could be improved.
The powers under the present legislation are flexible and can be used in ways that suit local circumstances and fit in with the contingency plans worked out with the local authorities, the police, the port authorities and others. We consider that the amendment proposed is premature in the light of the trials that are currently taking place and, moreover, too prescriptive in attempting to set details by order which may best be determined at local level. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, my understanding is that the working party does not have its final meeting until 5th April and therefore, presumably, its report and recommendations will be too late, even if it did recommend that someone had a statutory duty. I hope that the Minister will ask his staff to look at this matter again between now and Third Reading and consider whether some modified form of this amendment might be appropriate.
I was not of course suggesting that the environment agency should knock on doors or use loudhailers; that would remain a responsibility of police. I simply felt it would be useful if there were a statutory obligation on the agency to issue warnings in the first place. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("other than its pollution control functions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 48. All three amendments raise the issue of the agency's environmental duties.
It is self-evident that a new body set up to protect and enhance the environment should have the strongest possible duties to enable it to perform this role. We discussed the effect of Clause 7 in Committee, and I listened closely to what my noble friend the Minister had to say in response. I welcome the fact that the Bill will extend new environmental duties to integrated pollution control and waste functions. This is an important step forward. However, I still do not understand the justification for removing the duty to further conservation in relation to pollution control functions which are so important to the NRA.
There is a widespread view outside this House that the agency's duty to further environmental protection should apply to all of its functions, including pollution control functions. There will be real concern if this Bill is not amended to achieve this.
As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell so eloquently explained to the House on a number of occasions, this duty has been a vitally important bolster for the NRA in tackling water pollution issues across the country. The Broads authority is one of many organisations which are concerned by this clause. It has expressed particular concern about the effect of the clause on the efforts of the NRA to remove phosphates at sewage treatment works. That is vital to its conservation strategy for improving these important wetlands.
The key question that I asked the House to consider is whether it is content to see the duties which currently apply to the NRA being weakened. My noble friend the Minister assured the House in Committee that the Government do not seek to weaken the agency's commitment to conservation. But I have heard nothing which reassures me that that will not be the effect of Clause 7. We have certainly not heard any explanation which could justify the loss of such an important duty. I hope that my noble friend can provide a positive response to these widely held concerns, or suggest another way through this difficulty. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, although I can see that there is a tension between pollution control, discharge consents, and so on, and the other obligations on the agency. I speak particularly to Amendment No. 37, which offers in a sense a fallback compromise position. If the Minister feels that the other amendments go beyond the current duties of the NRA, then this amendment would include merely the current NRA duties but would exclude the current duties of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution. Thus it would effectively preserve the status quo and would address the issue of greatest concern. I hope that this amendment might be welcome to the Government, and that it might suggest a possible way through. Although I would regret weakening the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, I think that this might offer a position that the Government might be willing to adopt. I therefore encourage examination of Amendment No. 37.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, while I can well understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved this amendment, I intervene to say that it seems
1656
to me that in the question of controlling pollution one is dealing with the matter of degradation of the environment; whereas with the question of enhancing natural life forms, it is a matter of trying to build and improve things. They are essentially two sides of the same coin. One cannot improve the environment in terms of habitats and species unless one has first controlled the pollution. It seems to me that that is the greater evil that has to be addressed. It should not be made subservient to other interests. I do not know whether that is the reason that the Bill has been formulated in the way that it has. I should be interested to know from the Minister whether that supposition on my part is correct.
Lord Moran: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word on Amendment No. 36. Normally the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, at the head of an amendment is a guarantee that it is environmentally sound and sensible. I am therefore particularly sorry to have to differ from the noble Lord on this particular amendment. It is very rare for me to do so.
I think we are all agreed that the environment agency should have a strong duty to take conservation considerations very seriously indeed and do its utmost for conservation; and that that duty should be no weaker—and hopefully somewhat stronger—than that which is now imposed on the NRA. I think it is also generally accepted, and it is certainly my view, that the NRA has done very good work in dealing with conservation problems.
As we all know, late last year there was a great clamour by statutory agencies and NGOs arguing that the environment agency's duties as regards conservation were weaker than those that the NRA now has. In response, the environment Minister changed the wording of the duty to "further" conservation, except in respect of pollution control functions. The statutory agencies and a number of NGOs seem to think that to make that exception is simply perverse. For example, the RSPB says:
"The motive behind the Government's determination to exclude pollution control from the duty to further nature conservation remains obscure".
At Second Reading I said that I was one of the few who tended to think that the Government had got the matter about right. I referred to the evidence given by Dr. Slater, head of HM Inspectorate of Pollution, to the Environment Committee of another place on 23rd November last year. I hoped that the NGOs and others concerned would study carefully what he had said. In that hope I have been disappointed. Therefore, I ought to tell the House in summary what Dr. Slater said on that occasion. He was asked specifically whether it was a fact that pollution control was only to "have regard to" conservation. He replied as follows:
"Yes, but that is rather stronger than we have at the moment. At the moment under IPC we have to prevent, minimise and render harmless; we have to take clear note of impact of operations; and we have to basically put the environment back better than we found it. Here this direction actually, even in pollution prevention, requires us to have regard to the desirability of conservation. We think that is an extension of what we do at the moment".

1657
He went on:
"The Environmental Protection Act is pretty powerful in what it allows you to do in terms of environmental protection…We think adding a requirement to having regrd to conservation takes us further".
He concluded:
"1 think our position is that legally we feel, with the current wording of the Bill, we can do everything and more we need to do in terms of pollution control to protect the environment".
From someone who is intimately concerned in dealing with pollution control all the time, that seems pretty conclusive.
Clause 7(1) (a) of the Bill—the part that deals with all the duties of the agency except pollution control—says that the agency is to have a duty:
"to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest".
That is "so far as may be consistent" with four important qualifications, the first of which is that it must be consistent:
"with the purposes of any enactment relating to the functions of the agency".
So the duty to further is very heavily and powerfully qualified. However, in Clause 7(1) (b)—the part dealing with pollution control—the duty "to have regard to" conservation is not so qualified. So in practice, for Clause 7(1) (a), where the duty and the purposes of an enactment conflict, the duty may in some circumstances have to be put aside. It could be challenged in the courts. A qualified duty may therefore in practice be weaker than an unqualified one "to have regard to" it.
So maybe this amendment and its supporters are inadvertently arguing for a partial weakening of the conservation duty in relation to pollution control functions. In any event, from the information that I have it seems that the conservation duty has had a minimal effect on the NRA's functions.
Earlier this evening the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, mentioned the correspondence that he had circulated to some Members of this House. I was one of those Members. I read the Minister's letter to him with great interest. In that letter he made it clear that when the NRA has been tackling sewage discharges affecting SSSIs, it was:
"part of the NRA's general work of seeking to secure improvement in river quality and depends upon the powers to set discharge concentration conditions and to require improvements in the effluent quality…the advice my officials have received from the NRA is that the [conservation] duty has had no effect with regard to its issuance of discharge consents".
It seems to me that we are not therefore concerned with any weakening of a current function. I am surprised that the organisations that are supporting this amendment—I have received briefs for this Report stage from the Countryside Commission, the RSPB, the CPRE and the Wildlife Trusts—apparently have paid no attention to Dr. Slater's evidence, to which I referred at Second Reading, or to the qualifications to the duty to further conservation, which none of them mentioned at all in the briefs for Report stage, particularly as I wrote to one of the organisations on 3rd January drawing its attention to those considerations and the Minister's view as expressed at Committee stage.
1658
Therefore, I believe that this amendment is misconceived. I hope that the Government will not accept it. I believe that the wording in Clause 7 is right. On balance, in the light of what Dr. Slater said, it seems to me that, as we wish, it somewhat strengthens and extends the responsibility of the environment agency to give weight to conservation considerations.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, after that, I suppose I should be feeling rather chastened. I and a good many of my colleagues at the NRA have continued to be quite concerned about this issue, despite the observations of the noble Lord and the statements of Dr. Slater.
This is an extremely complex issue. One has only to read the letter that my noble friend Lord Ullswater wrote to me, and a similar letter that he sent to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, to see that we are in tricky legal waters. I am not a lawyer. I hesitate when I am asked to balance the likely strengths of various subsections against other subsections should they be interpreted by the courts.
It is perfectly true that in very specific terms the NRA has not been able to find a case in which we could say without qualification that it has enabled us to act. But my noble friend Lord Mills cited a case in the north-west of England in which certainly those who were acting for the NRA believed that they were acting because of those powers. What is more, they were very confident that the water authority reacted as it did because it too thought that those clauses had that effect. So we moved from a situation in which people were interpreting the law to that effect to a situation in which it might perhaps be different. So we must move with some caution.
I was taken by surprise when my noble friend Lord Cranbrook raised this issue with an earlier amendment, on the introduction of the Government's new Clause 4. He put a rather interesting question of whether the effect of the Government's new clause was to give cover on this particular point. I am not sure that my noble friend responded and gave a very clear answer then, but it was an interesting question. Turning to the list of SSSIs which English Nature suggested might be put at risk and to the observations of English Nature, I observe that there is reference to the special ecosystem classification for water quality objectives.
I observe also that in his letter to me my noble friend suggests, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that Clause 7(1) (b) may be useful in that context. Fine, I think it may be. But if Clause 7(1) (b) is to have the effect that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and I want, it can only be really effective if statutory water quality objectives are implemented. I do not believe that sites of special scientific interest, including all those in the English Nature list, will be fully protected without the implementation of the special ecosystem component of SWQOs to which my noble friend referred in the paper that he circulated. My anxiety is that, while it is true that after five years the Government have started on the process of allowing us to proceed with a small number of trial statutory water quality objectives, there is a clear

1659
hint that they do not believe that the trial will be extended very far or that we are likely to have a large number of statutory water quality objectives.
I return to a point which I have made again and again and which I shall go on making, because I do not believe that the Government are right on this issue. We cannot have effective protection of the water environment and we cannot protect my noble friend's SSSIs and have a fully effective Clause 7(1) (b) unless we have a proper system of statutory water quality objectives and the ecosystem component of them. The Government may have convinced me that their lawyers are better than my own legal expertise—they certainly are—and I shall not challenge the careful balance of argument put forward by the Government's lawyers in the letter that was circulated. But from the practical experience of those on the ground I remain utterly convinced, after five years, that the environment will not be effectively protected unless a proper system of water quality objectives is introduced.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it is convenient to have most of one's speech given by someone else, especially when that someone else is as authoritative as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I intervened at an earlier stage on an amendment tabled by my noble friend the Minister. In fact I used the example to ask a question: if it is now—under his amendment, to which we agreed—the principal aim of the agency to achieve sustainable development, with all the corollaries that exist in the amendment, will that have the result of ensuring that the agency achieves the active conservation achieved by the NRA in conjunction with English Nature? That was the reason I brought forward elements that, as my noble friend the Minister said, were more appropriate to a debate on this amendment. But that is the critical question.
If sustainability feeds through in that way, we may be covered. Sustainability consists of a proper balance of regulation and economic measures. That is the essence of what we are trying to achieve, whatever we call it. I am not worried about the definition because I understand perfectly what it means. There must be a regulatory basis. I am convinced, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, that the special ecosystem and the levels of purity and quality of water required in order to sustain the conservation values of those waters need to be applied by regulation and cannot be achieved by economic measures. That is why I brought forward my figures and examples. Your Lordships have heard them before and I have no need to repeat them.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36 and 40 seek to delete Clause 7(1) (b) and include the agency's pollution control functions in subsection (1) (a), meaning that the agency would be under a duty to further conservation in respect of all its functions. Amendment No. 48 is consequential on those.
The Government have considered carefully the conservation role of the agency. We are sure that it is right that it should have proper regard for the needs of
1660
conservation in discharging all its functions, and the Bill seeks to ensure that. We have already rehearsed the arguments on this duty on a number of occasions. As I have said before, the NRA's existing duty is not unqualified and must be adapted to the broader functions of the agency. To further conservation in every case would be inconsistent with the agency's role in issuing environmental licences. And I do not believe that the changes to the duty in relation to water discharge consents will in practice damage the interests of conservation, all of which I indicated at Committee stage.
The proposed provisions will give the agency all the powers it needs to protect the interests of nature conservation, and in certain respects it might be able to go further than would have been possible had its water discharge function continued to be subject to a provision along the lines of Section 16 of the Water Resources Act 1991. I think that the provisions in this Bill will be at least as effective as the current duty in the context of the agency's pollution control functions; I recently provided a lengthy explanation of how they might work in practice in a very detailed letter to my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Cranbrook which I understand my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and English Nature have made widely available to interested Peers.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the environmental NGOs hay e underestimated and misunderstood the effect and significance of the duty to have regard to the interests of conservation in what is now Clause 7(1) (b). That will apply to the agency's functions under the Alkali Etc Works Regulation Act 1906, Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and so forth, listed under Clause 5(5). It was right for the noble Lord to point out that those functions are now listed in the Bill.
In formulating or considering any proposals relating to its functions under each of these enactments, the agency will have a duty under Clause 7(1) (b) to have regard to the desirability of conserving and enhancing natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest. I believe that the extension of this duty in its more specific form across the whole of the agency's pollution control functions represents an important extension of its ability to take proper account of conservation in discharging its functions, while at the same time avoiding ambiguities and inconsistencies in the way that conservation is taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook returned to the consideration of how Clauses 4 and 7 met together. What we sought to do in Clause 4 was to identify the principal aim of the agency, whereas in Clause 7 we are looking to the duties of the agency. I believe that there is a distinction between the two. The distinction is sometimes blurred. We are careful to express what the duty of the agency is, but the aim of the agency must be qualified in guidance by Clause 4.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 51 are perhaps seeking to address the point I have made before, in that it would not be possible for the agency to further conservation while issuing authorisations under IPC. These

1661
amendments seek to limit the definition of "pollution control functions" to mean only the functions transferred from HMIP. The noble Baroness is thus making a very odd distinction between the pollution control functions of HMIP, on the one hand, and those of NRA and the waste regulation authorities, on the other. I cannot accept that there should be such a distinction between the conservation duties relating to the control of pollution of air, land or water. Such an approach is completely inconsistent with the Government's integrated approach to pollution control.
Amendment No. 38 would have the effect of removing the requirement from the agency of ensuring that its duty to further conservation under Clause 7(1) (a) is consistent with its duties in respect of sustainable development and other objectives under Clause 4. We have already discussed at length both the aim of achieving sustainable development and the guidance which will be provided to the agency in connection with this aim. Conservation is one part of sustainable development, but it is not the only factor to be considered. It is essential to recognise that at the end of the day the agency's core purposes are environmental protection and water management. The agency's conservation duty must logically be subject to the guidance on sustainable development and other aims.
Sustainable development is government policy. It is a policy of governments around the world and it takes proper account of the importance of conservation in balance with other relevant factors. That is in line with our approach to Clause 7 as a whole. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for their contributions. It is a very complex issue. I and the organisations which have supported the amendments will be reading Hansard very carefully tomorrow morning before we decide whether we shall want to do anything at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 38, after ("buildings,") insert ("structures,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with a mixture of gratitude and shame to move this amendment and to speak to one or two other amendments standing in my name. I say "gratitude" because the Minister has tabled some amendments which respond to arguments which I posed at the Committee stage of the Bill and which I shall gratefully accept and will most thankfully support. I think that he followed the precedent of the British Waterways Act which I mentioned at Second Reading; but I may be wrong there. I know how difficult it is to move Whitehall, and I am extremely glad that the Minister has moved as far as he has. This is where my shame comes in. Despite my gratitude for the movement he has made, I am asking him now to move a little
1662
further in response to the arguments which I have already made and will now make again. That is why I have tabled Amendments Nos. 42, 46, 50, 77, 80 and 82.
I know that this is a sideshow in a Bill which is very vast and wideranging but it is a sideshow which is of importance to a substantial profession in our country. My amendments deal with the proposition that buildings include structures. In fact, they do not. The Institution of Structural Engineers, which is an important professional organisation, when it is speaking of its profession, describes it as,
"designing and making buildings, bridges, frameworks and other similar structures".
As noble Lords will notice, those who know about these matters distinguish between buildings and structures of many other kinds. I wonder why the law cannot do the same thing. Why cannot the law make the same distinctions as those who know about it do? For example, we talk of the building and construction industry. In our daily parlance we distinguish between building and construction. The building industry builds buildings. The construction industry for the major part constructs structures. Buildings and structures are not the same. There is no reason why they should apparently be the same in some definition in the law.
I remind the House of the Anderton lift to which I referred at the Committee stage. Its function is to lift a ship from one part of a canal at a low level to another part of the same canal at a higher level. The feature of the Anderton lift is that it moves. If it moves, it might be a vehicle or it might be a machine. It is certainly a structure. But I cannot for the life of me see how it can be a building. One of the characteristics of buildings is that they do not as a rule move; or on such occasions when they do move we become alarmed. A building does not move. Structures, however, might well move. So how on earth can a structure he a building? I know that the law is sometimes described as an ass, and I should not like to underline that. But it comes fairly close to it on this occasion. The same is true of a tunnel. How can a tunnel be a building, whether it is a tunnel on a canal or a tunnel on a railway line? How can a lock on a canal be a building? How can the lockgates be a building? The thing is absurd. How can the Forth Bridge be a building? None of them is a building. They are all structures. They are separate things. All I am saying is that we should separate buildings from structures and delete that part of the Bill which says that buildings include structures. There is no logic in this.
I see from their happy smiling faces that I have convinced the Ministers on the Front Bench, though I dare say that they will have to convince their masters in some way. But I have them in my sights. I know this. I know it from the letters they have written to me. The noble Viscount wrote to me very politely in January and explained that my demand then for a reference to engineering structures would have left out other structures. He may have been right but I could not think of any other structures that could have been left out, although I did think of Cleopatra's Needle. I do not think that is what he meant. But I could not think what he meant. So I turned away from that. Then he sent

1663
me another letter which took a different line. Perhaps Whitehall thought that that line was not too fruitful. It said that Whitehall,
"desired to avoid changing provisions from existing legislation except to the extent that this is strictly necessary".
One thing which has struck me during my 17 years in this House is that we keep changing existing legislation. I am certain that when we do that it is absolutely necessary at all times. But I do not believe that that is a very strong argument.
I know the Minister will realise that I do not intend to press these amendments. I want him to do something which is quite simple; namely, to consider what I have said not only tonight, but on the several occasions during the past seven or eight years when I have pursued these minor arguments. I ask him to consider those arguments with the same sympathy as he considered the arguments at Committee stage. I ask him to do the same as he did then and to return at Third Reading with a very simple amendment with which I agree. I ask him merely to put beside the word "building" the word "structure". If he does that we shall have solved the philosophical dilemma which seems to be dividing us. I know that that would make him happy and I can assure the noble Viscount that it would make me happy. He will have given substantial psychological benefit to the entire engineering profession. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 42, 46 and 50 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, seek to include "structure" in addition to the terms "building, site or object" in Clauses 7(1) (c) and (2) (b), and to delete the definition at the end of Clause 7 which states that the term "building" includes the term "structure" for the purposes of the environment agency's conservation and recreation duties. Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82 would amend Clause 30, for SEPA, in the same way.
The noble Lord spoke about these amendments in respect of engineering structures so eloquently at Committee stage that both I and my noble friend Lord Lindsay agreed to consider the issue further. It is for this reason that I have tabled Amendments Nos. 43, 47, 78 and 81. These amendments would ensure that buildings, sites and objects of engineering interest are treated in the same way as those of archaeological, architectural or historic interest under Clauses 7 and 30. The remainder of Lord Howie's amendments are not necessary as Clause 7(7) makes it perfectly clear that in this context, "building" includes "structure".
I have listened to the noble Lord this evening. We were persuaded at Committee stage that the issues raised by the noble Lord were valid concerns and therefore we propose that the word "engineering" should be included in Clause 7(1) (c) and subsection (2) (b) in respect of the environment agency and in Clause 30 in respect of SEPA.
We have met the substance of the noble Lord's concerns and as today is, I understand, the noble Lord's birthday, perhaps that is a sufficient present for him. In
1664
view of that, I hope that he will not seek to press his amendment which I truthfully believe in these circumstances is covered by the words of the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his congratulations on my birthday. It seems such a short time since the last birthday! Does the noble Viscount believe that the Anderton Lift is actually a building?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is most probably a structure, in which case it is covered by the words in the Bill.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 39, after ("architectural") insert (", engineering").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 42, at end insert ("and
(iii) to have regard to any effect which the proposals would have on the economic and social well-being of local Communities in rural areas.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak very briefly to Amendment No. 52 which is merely a technical amendment associated with Amendment No. 45. The environment of our rural areas is a managed one. It depends on the people who live there, who create it and those who have businesses there. In an earlier part of the discussion on the new clause my noble friend mentioned the fact that sustainable development is a balance between ensuring the environmental advantage on the one side and how to achieve development within it on the other. Having heard many of the debates during the course of this Bill, I believe that we also need to have a balance on the face of the Bill.
Therefore, this amendment is to add a third item to Clause 7 which states that the Ministers and the agency will also have a duty,
"to have regard to any effect which the proposals would have on the economic and social well-being of local Communities in rural areas".
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me that it is very important that this Bill pays due recognition to the importance of the people who work and have their well-being within our rural areas.
I am most grateful to my noble friend for meeting me and many other noble Lords for discussions on this issue. As a result he will be aware of the support that this amendment has on all sides of the House. I am also aware that I have the full support of the Country Landowners' Association, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the National Farmers Union, the Confederation of British Industry and the Rural Development Commission. My noble friend Lord Shuttleworth would have supported this amendment had he been here this evening. Many other organisations which are involved with social and economic matters within our rural areas also support this amendment. I

1665
hope that my noble friend and many other noble Lords throughout the House will be able to support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, after that catalogue of support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade, it may seem somewhat of a work of supererogation that I should add my brief word in support of the amendment as well. There is a point to be made and it is important that it should appear in the Bill. People concerned with a wide range of environmental matters, particularly as regards parts of the countryside which are changing fast under the stresses and developments of modern civilisation, should also be asked to remember that there are people who have to live and work there and go about their daily avocations. They too should be in the minds of those who make policy.
I do not wish to anticipate debates which we may come to next week, but we know that in the national parks, where there has been a more intensivee environmental regime, the communities sometimes feel that the authorities responsible for administering those powers do not seem to care as much for the people as they do for the flora and fauna and the other parts of our national heritage. It is important that they do so.
My noble friend has made an extremely good point. Let us have those provisions clearly stated on the face of the Bill so that when there are the inevitable conflicts—and a balance will certainly need to be struck—at least people have something to which they can point and can say, "You have to pay attention to us because the Act says so". I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond favourably to the hopes that have been expressed.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Wade and Lord Jenkin, have made very relevant points which I do not need to repeat, but I should like to emphasise my support for the amendment. To continue the theme that has been set out, a formula such as is envisaged in the amendment already exists in the Bill in relation to the national parks. The national park authorities are charged with taking note of the "economic and social well-being" of the local population. We welcome that. However, that should be a general duty on all environmental agencies and authorities because without a sustainable population one cannot have sustainable development. That seems to me to be the key to the whole argument. I hope, therefore, that either immediately or at a later stage the Government can accept the provisions of the amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, a particularly strong case has been made for the amendment, and I very much hope that either this amendment or something along these lines can be incorporated into the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, made a powerful case for his amendment, which I wish to support. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out, there seems a curious anomaly in the Bill as presently drafted, in that the national park authorities are required to,
1666
"have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park",
but those outside the national parks do not have the same benefit. That leads to the idiotic result that the national parks are obliged to look after the "economic and social well-being" of people living within their area, but those living in rural areas outside the national parks do not have the same benefit. To add another argument to those adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that seems an illogicality which the Government might consider.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I would not want to cast any shadow on the welcome which has been given to this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wade, except to say that perhaps the Scottish Landowners' Federation—and some of us who will be speaking later with its advice and support—feel that the clause is a little narrowly drawn, in that it is not absolutely clear that,
"the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas",
necessarily includes the interests of those who own and occupy the land. When we come to Clause 30, I and perhaps other noble Lords may be making that point. It would, of course, be of great succour to those of us who are perhaps more interested in Scottish than in English affairs to hear my noble friend confirm that those interests are, indeed, covered by this amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton seeks to add to the agency's and Ministers' general environmental and recreational duties a duty in formulating or considering proposals relating to the agency's functions to have regard to any effect which the proposals would have on the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas. Amendment No. 52 is consequential upon that.
In responding to a similar amendment from my noble friend in Committee, I made clear that the Government are at one with him in recognising the importance of the agency having proper regard to the wider consequences in exercising its functions. I suggested that it would have to consider the needs of agriculture and forestry—those were the words used by my noble friend in his original amendment—just as it will need to consider the needs of other sectors it would regulate, and that, in doing so, it would need to take account of a number of considerations not specifically included in the legislation, including social ones. I noted that reconciliation of the needs of the environment with the needs of economic development lies at the heart of sustainable development and suggested that the mechanism included within the Bill by which the agency is to have regard to guidance to be provided by Ministers offers the best way of ensuring that Ministers and the agency properly consider the kinds of issue with which noble Lords are concerned. In the generality of cases I still believe this to be true, but, like my noble friend Lord Jenkin and other noble Lords, I also recognise the need to be particularly sensitive to the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas.

1667
I find it difficult to indicate to my noble friend Lord Pearson that the social well-being of local communities in rural areas could somehow exclude landowners if they form part of their local community. I shall need to look closely at what he has said. If he says that there is a separation between being part of a local community and being a landowner, I shall need to think very carefully about it.
The Government believe it important to address the particular problems of rural areas on which the noble Lord and others have spoken so eloquently and forcefully this evening. I accept that in this Bill we have to acknowledge the damage that can be done if their social needs are not properly considered when deciding how best to protect and enhance the environment. Therefore, the Government are willing to accept the noble Lord's amendments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider carefully whether or not to bring forward similar amendments in relation to the Scottish provisions.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for accepting the amendment. I am sure that the Bill is very much better for it. I am grateful to all the noble Lords throughout the House who have supported it. I beg to move.
Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 9, line 3, after ("architectural") insert (", engineering").
On Question Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 40, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in this section shall enable the Agency to require from any party reports, evidence or documentation of a nature similar to that previously considered by a local planning authority in pursuance of that authority's planning functions under the Town and Country Planning Acts and related legislation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment in the hope that my noble friend will be able to respond to concerns expressed to him by the Law Society and planning lawyers as regards the effect of Clause 7. The fear is that Clause 7 as drafted may give the agency the power to act as a second planning authority, introducing a potentially conflicting, expensive and dilatory second level of regulation. Under normal development control process, an applicant obtains planning permission for his development from the planning authority. As part of the process, the 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 then has to seek consent for works specifically involving the regulatory authorities, for example land drainage works, he will be placed in an
1668
untenable position. The agency can require the developer to repeat environmental exercises that have already been undertaken in respect of the original planning application to the local planning authority. This amendment will render the taking of those additional steps unnecessary. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 49 moved by my noble friend seeks to ensure that nothing in Clause 7 shall give the environment agency the power to require anyone to provide information similar to that which previously will have been considered by a local planning authority in relation to its functions under planning legislation.
I am sure that my reply would have benefited from hearing what my noble friend had to say about this matter at Committee stage. Unfortunately, at that moment I believe that he was prevented from doing so. We accept that there can be an overlap between the information that is required for planning purposes and information required for pollution control. We have tried to address it in various ways, one of which is through Planning Policy Guidance Note. No. 23. That provides guidance on the respective roles of the planning and pollution control systems. It stresses the need for proper consultation between planning and pollution control authorities, and has been prepared in consultation with interested parties.
I am sorry that I cannot give my noble friend a more detailed response to his amendment. The environment agency will need to obtain information for a variety of purposes, including the assessment of applications for licences. I think it is right that it should be able to obtain all of the information that it needs to carry out its functions properly. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment, although if he remains concerned about it I will be happy to meet and discuss it with him further.
Lord Colraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reassuring reply, which is reassuring as far as it goes. I know that what he has said will be read with critical interest by those who advise me. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Environmental duties with respect to sites of special interest]:
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 10, line 9, after ("above") insert ("(other than section 7(1) (c) (iii) above)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Advisory committee for Wales]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 27, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 53 standing in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. It may be for the convenience of the

1669
House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. Yet again, we turn to the question of the relationship between local authorities and the agency, this time in Wales.
Your Lordships will be aware that there has been a local government reorganisation in Wales along somewhat different lines from the local government reorganisation which has been proposed for England. I now gather that it will be on a slightly different basis. In speaking to this group of amendments, I wish to address the local authority matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, wishes to speak to his amendment (Amendment No. 54).
Local authority associations in Wales, particularly the Council of Welsh Districts, are especially concerned about the shift from local accountability, through locally elected members of local councils, in a more indirect route to Government Ministers. That change in accountability will be felt most keenly in the area of waste regulation which of course is a current district council (or unitary council as it will be) responsibility, but will be transferred, we now hear, to the environment agency. But local authorities in Wales will continue to play a significant role in the protection of the environment, as environment health and planning authorities; and it will continue to be to local authorities that members of the public turn when they have both specific and general concerns about the environment.
For those reasons, and to maintain the necessary link between local authority regulation and regulation by the agency, we believe that it is essential that the advisory committee for Wales has a sufficient number of elected representatives serving on it.
The draft management statement of the environment agency gives no greater commitment than to appoint members representing a range of interests in the principality. By nominating those already elected as representatives of local people, the Secretary of State will ensure that the greatest range of interests is in fact represented. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, in Committee on 19th January on this issue (Hansard, col. 843–845) I proposed a number of amendments relating to the membership of the advisory committee for Wales. I do not want to repeat those arguments, but to endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about the importance of local authority representation, and the scale and nature of that representation. That argument relates to one I deployed more generally earlier about the agency in England and Wales; namely, the issue of whether the agency itself is to be a partnership and is to have local accountability, or whether it is to appear to be a non-departmental public body along traditional quango lines.
In that discussion (at col. 848), the Minister emphasised that he accepted that it was important for the advisory committee for Wales to comprise a wide range of representative views. He accepted that nature conservation and pollution control experience would be useful to the advisory committee. That is why in my amendment, which is grouped with Amendment No. 53, I have stressed membership of the Countryside Council
1670
for Wales, and of at least one member of the Countryside Council for Wales being also a member of the environment agency.
I do that for another reason, of course, which is my concern about the role of the Countryside Council for Wales in environmental protection and conservation activity within the principality. In that debate, and in a subsequent debate on 2nd February, the future of that agency was raised. I received subsequently a detailed letter from the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in which he emphasised that the CCW grant for 1995–96 would be sufficient for it to fulfil its statutory duties.
I am still concerned that the review of the CCW has not been completed. It is not clear to what extent the CCW will be able to play a key role as a partner with the new environment agency if it is to see its activities curtailed severely. I am concerned that the action plan with which the agency is being threatened by the Secretary of State will concentrate its activities on limited aspects of protected areas and nature conservation without giving it that necessary broader remit of countryside activities and overall commitment to sustainable development in Wales, which seems to be necessary for a wide-ranging countryside agency.
For those reasons, and in view of the uncertainty surrounding the funding and the nature of the activity of CCW, it is even more important, in my view, that the Government should accept the amendment to ensure that there is at least one member of the Countryside Council who serves on the advisory committee for Wales, thereby ensuring that a link as regards environmental conservation, countryside management and the activity of the environment agency.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I venture to say a brief word about the amendments because I was for some years a member of the Advisory Committee for Wales under the NRA, so I have some experience of it. What concerns me a little is the fact that Amendment No. 55 would be inclined to make the committee too large and unwieldy.
I realise that waste disposal matters will be part of the remit of the environment agency and, therefore, that the composition of the advisory committee may need to change. However, at present, it is quite a small committee. When I was a member of the committee, it consisted of the NRA board member for the Welsh region, who was the chairman, the chairmen of the three advisory committees—that is, the fisheries, the rivers and flood defence committees—one representative of local government, one representative of industry, one conservationist and the regional general manager. That made a total of eight. In practice, it was useful to have just those eight people sitting down with the Ministers or the officials from the Welsh Office. We were able to make good progress.
If half the advisory committee had to come from local government, it would unbalance the committee and make it more difficult to include a proper representation of those who were either running the advisory committees under the agency—and I think that they should be members and contribute a great deal—and of outside interests like industry. I certainly believe that

1671
the advisory committee should contain a conservationist. Whether, as at present, it should be an outside conservationist or whether it should be a member of the Countryside Council for Wales is not something that matters too much. However, there certainly should be one on the committee.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. My reason for intervening is to make a brief reference to Amendment No. 54 and the suggestion that at least one member of the committee should be a member of the Countryside Council for Wales. It has only very recently been drawn to my attention that Clause 81 of the Bill (which provides that consultation should take place before certain subordinate legislation is made in England) for some curious reason for which I have not yet heard an explanation excludes Wales.
While in England advice has to be sought from the Countryside Commission and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission before certain quite important statutory instruments dealing with habitats and so on can be amended, there is no such reference here to Wales, to the Countryside Council for Wales or to Cadw. If they are to be left out—and I am not at all sure why they have been—it might at least be useful to have a member of the Countryside Council for Wales on the Secretary of State's Welsh committee.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have stayed here very quietly and, indeed, have not said a single word as yet. However, I feel that I should express my support on this occasion for Amendment No. 54. I believe that it is an essential step to take. I am not quite so sure as regards Amendment No. 55 as to whether we really need,
"half of the members of the Committee",
to be nominated as proposed. That seems to me to be rather excessive. Certainly there should be some. But I would hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will press the amendment if he feels so disposed. It is essential that in the Welsh scene we have adequate representation on the committee, and that both local authority and environmental experience should be catered for in some sensible arrangement. I would not necessarily want to go with every word of both these amendments, but I think they are very much on the right lines.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that at least half of the membership of the advisory committee for Wales comprises nominees of the local authorities in the Principality, and that a member of the Countryside Council for Wales is also included. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that the advisory committee will need to include locally elected members. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already committed himself to including locally elected members within the committee, which he feels is important to facilitate responsiveness to local needs.
1672
Under the existing Clause 11, the agency advisory committee for Wales would be set up in just the same way as was the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee for the Welsh region. It was not felt necessary to dictate in the legislation which established the latter committee any specific numbers of representatives from local government, nor indeed of other interests, and no rights of nomination were given to any body.
The National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee for Wales comprises a good balance of interests, including local authority representation. It has been very effective in bringing to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's attention issues of particular local concern. A recent example has been the serious pollution of the Neath Canal caused by mineral discharges. The committee was able to visit the site to examine the problem at first hand and has urged that the various parties involved should work together to bring forward a solution as quickly as possible. Following this involvement, a study has been set up to identify long-term remedial measures and an action plan put forward by the local authority has been given financial support by my right honourable friend under the strategic development scheme. The advisory committee has contributed to the development of a strong Welsh identify for the region and good links with the people of Wales—for example, by publishing in England and Welsh an annual report of the agency's activities in the Principality.
Welsh Office Ministers have already stated their intention that the advisory committee will include more than one locally elected member. I do not see that there is a need to constrain my right honourable friend's ability to choose an effective membership by specifying on the face of the Bill a precise minimum number of local authority members. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be responsible for approving the agency's membership scheme for its Environment Protection Advisory Committee for the Welsh region, which he will also wish to see include local authority representation.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consult the local authorities in Wales, through the local authority associations, before selecting members for the advisory committee for Wales. I do not think, however, that the legislation should restrict my right honourable friend to appointing from local government only local authority nominees. I think it is important that my right honourable friend is given the flexibility to make appointments, not just at the outset but in the future, which reflect the particular needs of Wales at the time and which produce the best balance of interests on the committee as a whole. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend intends to ensure that the advisory committee does encompass a representative range of views and wide-ranging expertise. Indeed, this will be vital if, as we intend, the committee is to provide effective advice to assist my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales as the Minister responsible for setting the policy framework within which the agency will operate in the Principality.

1673
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, encouraged by the noble Baroness, Lady White, suggests that the Countryside Council for Wales should have a member on the body. The Countryside Council for Wales is one example of the kind of body which could usefully contribute to the committee's consideration of conservation issues. There are others, however. For example, the senior conservation officer of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds serves on the existing NRA committee. I think it unnecessary, therefore, for the Countryside Council for Wales to be singled out on the face of the Bill.
To answer the question of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales is a statutory adviser to the Secretary of State and therefore its advice would be considered.
The advisory committee for Wales will need to advise on a wider range of activities than the current NRA committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, perceived. For example, it will need to have experience and knowledge of waste management, conservation, rivers, flood defence, fisheries and integrated pollution control. It will need to reflect the views of both industry and environmental organisations. I have to agree with the noble Lord that the requirement for half its members to he local government nominees could result in a very cumbersome and potentially less effective committee. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his response, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate.
The Minister has gone some of the way in reinforcing the declared intention of the Secretary of State for Wales to select elected members of local authorities. I do not see why he should not go a little further and accept members of local authorities who have been nominated by those local authorities. That would simply reinforce the accountability chain. I do not worry particularly about whether the membership is half, a third or an eighth. The numbers do not really matter. However, there should be a sizeable number of those who have their roots in local communities and are accountable democratically to those who elected them. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Concerning the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ellis-Thomas, there is considerable doubt about how the Secretary of State for Wales will deal with the Countryside Council for Wales. Any mention of the Countryside Council for Wales on the face of any Bill would have my support because it would guarantee the future of that body, which is now under great threat.
I have noted the point of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about Clause 81. I have already formulated an amendment, which is included on the Marshalled List, but I shall formulate a rather more elaborate amendment designed to ensure that similar consultation takes place in Wales as the Bill provides to take place in England. We shall deal with that when we come to Clause 81.
1674
I am grateful to the noble Viscount. The Government's position is not entirely satisfactory. I shall consult with my advisers to see what we do next or whether we leave it to another place to thrash the matter out. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Environment protection advisory committees]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 13, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to paragraph (b) of subsection (4) above, not less than one third of the members of any advisory committee appointed by virtue of subsection (2) (b) above shall be local authority members.
( ) A person shall not be appointed a local authority member of an advisory committee for any region unless he is a member of a principal council the area of which is wholly or partly comprised in that region.
( ) Before appointing any person to be a local authority member of an advisory committee for any region the Agency shall consult with every principal council the area of which is wholly or partly comprised in that region.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 56 follows the debate during the Committee stage and the welcome pledge from my noble friend the Minister at that stage that local government members would be included on the regional advisory committees of the environment agency. The amendment attempts to give form to that pledge and establish a consultation process so that local government is widely involved in the selection of its representatives.
The need for a close and intimate relationship between local government as the planning authorities and the environmental agencies as the regulatory authorities is illustrated simply by relating the kinds of terms and conditions that would go into a waste disposal planning permission. That has nothing to do with a waste disposal licence, but the terms are almost identical. Obvious factors such as suitability of site, impact on neighbours and long term future of the land are understood. Mode of transport, access and hours of work are understood. However, included in consideration of a planning permission today—they would not have been 25 or 30 years ago—will be the geology and hydrology of the site because movement of any waste under the ground is a matter of which planners now believe account has to be taken in the light of bitter experience over past years. Any emissions, and control of emissions, will also be subject to conditions of a planning consent. The method of working, standards and quality of cover, which could also be judged to be part of the licence, are also subjects of planning permission.
For planning permission to be given for a waste disposal facility, there has inevitably to be the closest and most intimate working relationship between the professional staff of local government and the professional staff of the appropriate regulatory body, soon to be the environment agency. At that level, I do not doubt that there will be the closest possible liaison. It is equally important that in parallel with that liaison,

1675
the political level of local government finds its involvement satisfactory. However good the professional working relationships might be, we would have a disastrous situation if a political separation between local government and the regulatory bodies ever developed.
It is in that sense that I move the amendment. I hope that the Minister might consider, if I may say this without being provocative, that the English provision is slightly more reasonable than the Welsh.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my name appears also to the amendment. I begin by expressing my thanks to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the time he gave when I took the chairman of the south-east waste regulation advisory committee to see him to argue the case for a more structured system of representation of local authorities on the advisory committees. I stress that they are advisory committees. They are not part of the executive chain of accountability. The members are there to advise the executive arm, which in this case is the agency; and, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, who better to offer advice from a wide range of local concerns than those who are elected members of local authorities?
We had a very curtailed debate at the end of the proceedings on 19th January. We moved a more ambitious serious of amendments which envisaged—as in the recent amendment, and as was the point of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel—that the agency should accept nominations, and accept nominated members. I understand the point my noble friend made to me, and to Mrs. Hawker (who came with me) that the Government are anxious to avoid representative members of these advisory committees. I refer to people who, in a sense, have not been chosen for their expertise in the field but somehow see themselves as accountable to the body from which they have come. It is a familiar argument. That dichotomy, that conflict, has been apparent in many different fields of Government activity. I understand that the Government are firmly committed to the idea that people shall not be representatives but shall be appointed for their merit and their value to the committee.
My noble friend's amendment moves away from that concept. All we ask is that the agency should consult with all the local authorities in the area to he covered by the advisory committee. No doubt it will receive suggestions for people who might be put forward and who will presumably be acceptable to the local authorities. From that body, the agency can select the people who it believes will make the best contribution to the work of the advisory committee.
The amendment suggests that no fewer than a third of the members of the advisory committee should be such people. I consider that that is the minimum for which we can reasonably ask on the face of the Bill in order to ensure that all the considerations are dealt with which my noble friend, with his great experience of local government, has outlined. Those considerations must be in the Bill, even after the extremely sincere
1676
assertion from the Front Bench that of course local authority elected members will be appointed. I wish to see that in the Bill, and the first paragraph of the amendment will give the Government what they want, while at the same time giving reassurance to the local authorities that they will have a say and that their members will be elected in sufficient numbers to have an influence on the work of the advisory committee. I strongly support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support the amendment. In our debate on the transfer of the functions of the waste regulation authorities, one of the threads running through the resistance to my attempts to avoid that transfer was the relationship that there would be with the committees. To include the provision proposed in the amendment on the face of the Bill would flesh out that assurance. It would make the transfer of the functions a little more palatable.
It is to the credit of those in local government that they continue to argue for such a provision. The temptation must be to say, "Well, if you want it, you get on with it", but in fact, they are keen to ensure that the new system works well, even if they do not necessarily support the whole of it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have no particular objection to the amendment except that if we are to write something on the face of the Bill for England, I see no reason why we should not do so for Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, may be less ambitious than the Welsh, but I would say that perhaps the English do not know how to play poker as well as the Welsh because you do not declare your hand at the outset of the game.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on nominations versus selection. However, we have had that argument on many occasions and I do not intend to elaborate on it now. I hope that we can agree on a middle way so that if the Secretary of State wishes to retain something called "flexibility", those selected at least have the endorsement of the authorities from which they come. There must be some degree of confidence between the authorities from which they come and the fact that they are members of an advisory committee for the agency. Otherwise the chain which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks to establish will break down.
There is a good deal of residual suspicion about appointments made by Secretaries of State to unelected bodies. We are learning to work through it by various constructions that have been set up by the Government, but there is still a good deal of residual suspicion. I am sure that by adopting the kind of formula which I have suggested the Minister could go at least some way towards alleviating the suspicion. I go halfway with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in supporting the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I have known very awkward members of local authorities who have

1677
worked on quangos and who have not been au fait with the work. Therefore, I prefer a cross-section of people to one set of "yes men".
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, has at least managed to contribute to this debate. In a way, he has indicated that he is on my side. I did not seem to have many friends in the House until he decided to speak.
As I explained on the previous amendment, I would indeed expect a number of local authority members to be included on the agency's regional environment protection advisory committees. There is no doubt that such individuals will bring significant experience of local authorities and local issues. I am sure that their advice will be of great value to the agency in developing its relationships with local authorities in general.
I therefore have some sympathy with the intention behind my noble friend's amendment. Nevertheless, I do not believe it would be right for the legislation to specify the proportion of local authority members on these committees. The Bill already provides a mechanism for the agency to propose schemes for the appointment of members in each region, for consultation on those schemes, and for the Secretary of State to approve, reject or modify proposals in the light of representations made. This is designed to enable individual schemes to take account of the particular circumstances of each region. I do not believe that the legislation should pre-empt that process by providing that local authority members should comprise at least one-third of the membership of these committees. There are many organisations with a claim to a place. We should allow the agency to propose what the balance should be, and not seek to fix all or part of it in statute.
I should also explain that the committees are not intended to be the only, or indeed the primary, means by which the agency interacts with local authorities. It will be important for the agency to develop working-level arrangements with authorities in areas such as planning and development control—as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said—local air pollution control and environmental health, and emergency planning. The committees should not be seen as a substitute for such arrangements.
My noble friend's amendment would also require the agency to consult every principal council in a region before appointing a person as a local authority member. I would submit that his concern is already covered elsewhere in the Bill, particularly in Schedule 3. Before appointing a member to a committee, the agency must consult appropriate bodies or persons identified in the membership scheme. In the case of individuals who are local authority members, I would indeed expect the agency to consult, under this provision, the principal councils in the relevant region.
I know that I shall not have satisfied my noble friend. But I hope I have indicated where, I believe, the right balance should lie. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have supported this amendment this evening. I shall not take the time of the House for very long. I
1678
sympathise, curiously enough, with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The last thing we want is a committee of yes-men; but equally, the last thing one would want is a committee of no-men. We need a committee of people who know what they are about. In that respect, the views of local government, because of the practical implications, are very significant.
I will consider what my noble friend the Minister has had to say, and whether I need to take this matter any further at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 13, line 23, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 24 and insert ("establish a Wales region").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to establish a Welsh region for the agency. I shall move it in a very reasonable manner, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said earlier.
Reverting to our debate in Committee on 19th January (specifically at cols. 844–845), the noble Viscount responded to this question of the boundaries of the new agency and its activities. He emphasised that this was a decision for the agency itself, and that it should be determined, in the case of Wales, by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales in consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture.
However, it is now time that this issue was clearly discussed in this House, so that the thinking that is taking place within the agency should emerge. In particular, I would want to argue that the question of the national boundary of Wales in relation to the activity of the agency is a matter for Parliament.
No doubt I shall excite the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on this issue. When dealing with the amalgamation of the three parts of the agency, we deal with different boundaries relating to different structures and different functions.
I want to start the argument from the point of view that the Government have decided not to go ahead with the proposal to establish a separate agency for Wales, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel earlier. The issue was debated and no doubt it will be returned to in another place, if not in this Chamber, at a later stage of the Bill.
But given that that is not happening, it is very important that the structure of the Welsh region should remain strong in the activity of the agency. The noble Viscount said that. He said:
"It is important that the agency's Welsh region has a strong identity".—[Official Report, 19/1/95; col. 844.]
A strong identity is best maintained by indicating clearly how the region of the agency is to function. The combination of some 430 full-time staff from HMIP, some 7,500 staff from NRA and about 1,100 staff from local waste regulation authorities joining together in the case of England and Wales—at some stage I should welcome the figures for Wales as well—will create an imbalance in the way in which the structure develops.
My fear is that HMIP's present mode of operation will be over-determined, if not drowned—that is another metaphor—by the NRA's mode of operation and structure. The expertise of HMIP in developing the integrated pollution control system and all the important features of the EPA 1990 are extremely important not only in Wales but in the regions of England as well. As we know, HMIP is responsible for regulating the large polluting processes under the IPC; the smaller processes are governed by the local authority air pollution control.
As those aspects come together in the new agency, it seems to me that at this stage it is not clear which of the options for the geographical and managerial structure of the proposed environment agency, as discussed in the Touche Ross report last year, is the most likely to be implemented. I shall not repeat this evening all the models. Some of them emphasise the activity of the waste organisations and others emphasise the NRA model. But it concerns me that this should not be a matter just for the agency itself to resolve. It should be resolved in a relationship between the agency and the Secretary of State. I believe that Parliament should express a view, in particular about the integrity of the Wales region and its boundaries.
In the structure of the agency there are nine voluntary regional waste regulation committees in England; the Welsh districts carry out that function in Wales through the Council of Welsh districts; HMIP has field teams implementing the IPC system with its seven regions; the NRA has, I believe, eight regions where previously it had 10 regions. The NRA regions do not correspond to the geography of the waste regulation regions, which tend to follow local authority boundaries.
In the debates on this issue there have been arguments from the NRA about maintaining the integrity of river basin management. On the other hand, there has been the argument from HMIP that functions should be split because of the separate nature of the activities and the dangers of self-policing. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to respond, and if he cannot reply in detail tonight, perhaps he would ask his right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State for Wales, to consider what has been said in this debate and perhaps respond by letter. I am concerned by what seems to be happening. I describe merely a scenario which may only approximate to what is in fact going on.
It seems to me that a working group is trying to bring about a structure for Wales which is over-determined by the activity of the NRA. The Wales region of HMIP operated as a strong region, coterminous in its activities locally with local authorities. The NRA operates under the catchment areas. If the agency is allowed to decide the nature of its regions, then we may well see an England and Wales structure led by the NRA imposed on Wales. That will mean not only ensuring that Powys remains forever England—if one can use that expression—as part of Severn-Trent, as it is under the present structure of the NRA, but also that the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be dealing with two regions of the environmental agency.
As the waste regulatory functions are coming into the environmental agency, presumably the Part II functions of the 1990 Act now being transferred, based on existing local authorities, will be based on the new unitary authorities. But the Part I, if HMIP as part of the new environmental agency is to follow the new NRA boundaries, will be based on river catchment areas which are not coterminous with local authorities.
It is an important issue. We are in the middle of a local government reorganisation and the activities of the agency should follow similar boundaries. Part II of the Control of Pollution Act will no doubt conform with the NRA model. We may well see a situation where not only is the river catchment area structure taking place at the Wales regional level, but it may also be replicated at sub-regional level so that again the activity of HMIP, as taken into the agency, will not follow the boundary of the new unitary authorities and so the local authorities and the unitary authorities will not have parallel structures with the local activity of HMIP.
All that did not emerge in the debate on the Bill. Apparently the Government have not yet taken a view on the matter. The Government should express a clear view. It is not a matter for the agency. I am not putting forward a political argument for the Welsh political boundary in a devolutionary context; I am arguing for what I see to be a more efficient structure than that which may well be imposed upon us. For those reasons, I beg to move Amendment No 57.
10 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I wish to make a brief intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, need not be concerned that I shall be excited about the issue, though there are some important questions to be asked. One matter on which I am clear and which I share with him is that the Secretary of State for Wales must be responsible for what goes on in the whole of Wales. That has always been accepted. However, a group has been set up by the new advisory committee to look at this matter and examine the Touche Ross report. When one knows that Professor Ron Edwards is involved, it is likely that Welsh interests will be well looked after.
When a group is making a detailed study it seems to me to be a good idea that it should be allowed to complete its work and make recommendations before we rush into imposing solutions on a situation on the basis of a brief debate after 10 o'clock at night in this House. It does not necessarily follow—this goes for England as well as Wales—that it is appropriate to have coterminous boundaries for all the functions of the agency. There is a case, and it may well be a solution adopted in England as well as in Wales, that the boundaries in every case will not be exact. It may be sensible to have boundaries for waste functions and HMIP functions that match more closely to local authorities. But for the important reasons that the NRA advocated for employing catchment management, it may be important to keep the catchment management principle operating for the NRA functions.
I simply want to record the importance of managing rivers on a catchment management basis. Some sensible proposals were put forward before the Bill was

1681
introduced and they were discussed in great detail with the Welsh Office at the time. They would have enabled that principle to be carried forward into the new agency. They were the subject of wide consultation with the advisory committees in Wales and of wide agreement. I hope that we can leave the matter to the outcome of the discussions that are going on in the fairly confident belief that a sensible, practical solution will be developed which will both protect the environment and leave the Secretary of State for Wales with his proper responsibilities.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, 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, in just the way my noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated. 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 agency. Those are the words I used in Committee and have now repeated to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
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 region to consist wholly of, or mainly of, or of most of, Wales. The boundary will, however, need to be consistent with the structure chosen by the agency.
The Environment Protection Advisory Committee will be set up by the agency to advise the agency on how it can best carry out its functions in its Welsh region, whatever the boundary of that region. It makes sense therefore that the Environment Protection Advisory Committee for the Welsh region should not have a remit extending beyond the Welsh region, even if it transpires that not every part of Wales is included in the Welsh region. That 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 Wales, whatever the boundary of the Welsh region.
That is the position the Government have taken. I understand the noble Lord's concerns. However, having listened to what I have had to say, I hope he will be in a position to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for stating the Government's position. It does not seem to have moved from what was stated in Committee. I was pleased to hear the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that it might be possible to take different boundaries for different functions of the agency. Functions should lead in this matter rather than there being any question of trying to maintain an over-unified structure for what are, after all, diverse functions but functions which in the broad environmental remit of the agency complement one another. It is important that the integrity of the function and activity of HMIP in its relationship with local
1682
government in its Wales region should not be diminished in the transitional arrangements or indeed in the final arrangements that emerge from the Bill. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Regional and local fisheries advisory committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 60:
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

(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) like 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: My Lords, I seem to be somewhat fated with this amendment. I did not move it in Committee. I withdrew it without speaking to it because it was part of a grouping and came up at the magic hour of 10 o'clock when the Committee wanted to go home. I have brought it back in the same form and I say at the outset that it is by way of a probing amendment. However, I am slightly thrown again by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, not speaking to her two amendments which are also down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am sorry in a way because I rather favour those two amendments as opposed to mine. They go slightly broader and include conservation as well. I had not presumed to enter into the realms of conservation.
The reason for tabling this amendment is as a result of the Touche Ross study on the potential management structure for the new environment agency. All the navigation organisations and many other respondents favoured a management structure based somewhat on that of the National Rivers Authority. They also favoured the concept of a line of management which was based on fisheries, recreation, conservation and navigation. That line would flow through head office, down through regional offices and into an area structure.
With that in mind, I propose to amend Clause 13 to include regional committees for recreation and navigation in each of the areas, as I believe it is important that these activities should be defined as part of the consultation process for the environment agency, the regions and areas.
I assumed that perhaps navigation was rather too small a part of the whole new agency to warrant representation on the main environment committee. That may have been a somewhat naive assessment. I shall be delighted if the Minister can reassure me on that point and say that there might be a way of including a navigational interest on the main committee. That original assumption made me bring forward this amendment to see whether navigation and recreation can be represented on some of the lesser committees if they have no chance of being represented on the main committee. I beg to move.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I have some direct experience of the existing NRA advisory committees and in particular the regional fisheries advisory committees. I too had prepared an answer to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I believe that the principle remains the same. The regional fisheries advisory committees already deal with matters concerning recreation and navigation where they
1684
directly impinge on fisheries activities. That is very necessary. But for these committees to try to deal with all matters concerning these various other functions would be counter productive for the very simple reason that it could easily result in a committee, which would fail to deal with all or some of the constituent functions in an adequate manner. For that simple reason alone I cannot support this amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I too am not happy about this amendment. I have some experience of committees. For five years I was chairman of the regional fisheries advisory committee in the Welsh region. I believe that the effect of this amendment would be to dilute the fisheries committees in a way which would unbalance them and which would greatly upset fishery and angling interests. They are already very concerned about the possibility that fisheries are going to be downgraded. There are so many new and important aspects of the environment agency's functions that fisheries, which on the whole have been very well dealt with by the NRA, will become less important. As I pointed out at Second Reading, fisheries have suffered a drastic reduction in funding. There is real anxiety and I beg the Government to take account of it.
The formulation in Clause 13 of the Bill is right. It preserves the fisheries advisory committees as they are, but allows the new agency, if it wants to, to permit those committees to take on responsibilities for navigation, conservation and recreation. I believe that they can do that. But, if it is laid down in the Bill that the committees are to include all these functions, it would mean that fisheries would be one of four functions and presumably representation would go accordingly. That means that, instead of having committees of people who know and care about fisheries, there would be committees in which only about one-quarter of the members would be so qualified. I think that that would be worrying and a mistake. Therefore, I hope that the Government will stick to their guns and to the current wording of Clause 13.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, suggests looks reasonable on the surface, we must bear in mind that the new environment agency will have enormous responsibilities. It will be one of the biggest quangos ever. It will have to accept guidance from more than one Minister and will need quite a large organisation. If, in addition to all that, it is going to have the responsibility for finding, choosing and providing opportunities for information to be given to a number of separate committees dealing with each subject, we may well be asking too much of it. Therefore, I must join those noble Lords who have expressed doubts about the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I apologise briefly to the House. I had thought that by not moving my two amendments and allowing a debate to take place on the

1685
amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I might shorten proceedings a little. I am sorry if I have confused your Lordships.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I wish to make the briefest possible point in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said. Although there is a case over time for making some changes, I think that that should be done locally. The truth of the matter is that the situation varies enormously from region to region. In some regions the NRA at present (and the agency in the future) will have no navigation responsibilities; in others, the river may be an important fishery and the balance may be different. This is a case where it would be sensible for the agency to be able to move over time to a balance which represents the interests on its advisory committees. If we rush into this in legislation, I believe that the concerns which undoubtedly exist among fishing and angling interests will be magnified and we shall be getting off to a very bad start. If, however, flexibility is maintained, there is a possibility of moving over time to arrangements which suit each region.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I do not want to go into a great deal of technical detail, but it is clear that there is a great deal of anxiety among many different quarters and many different interests. I wonder whether it would be a good idea to have some consultation between those different interests and the department before the Bill goes to the other place.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 60, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, would amend or replace Clause 13. This clause requires the agency to establish fisheries advisory committees and to consult them as to the manner in which it performs its fisheries duties. It also provides that the agency may, with the consent of Ministers, additionally consult those committees as to the way in which it performs its duties in respect of recreation, conservation or navigation, and may expand the membership of the committees accordingly. The amendment would instead require the agency to establish committees which would from the outset be consulted not only on matters relating to fisheries, but also on those relating to recreation and navigation.
Although fisheries will by no means be the largest of the agency's functions, it will nevertheless be a very important one. There are some 3 million coarse and game anglers in England and Wales around whom a valuable industry has developed. The future of the sport and of the businesses it supports is largely dependent on the health of our salmon and freshwater fisheries. Salmon and freshwater fish are also an important indicator of water quality and of the general status of our inland waters. The importance of the role of the fisheries function within the agency is recognised by the existing clause, which provides for the establishment of separate fisheries committees, as is presently the case under the NRA.
That is not to say that we consider the agency's duties with regard to recreation, conservation and navigation to be unimportant. At present those activities are dealt
1686
with by the NRA's regional rivers advisory committees. Under the agency, they would come within the scope of the environment protection advisory committees provided for in Clause 12 of the Bill which, in the sense that they would be responsible for all of the functions of the agency, could be regarded as the successors to the regional rivers advisory committees. It is the Government's view that recreation, navigation and inland waterway navigation interests should be properly served by the environment protection advisory committees. The chairmen of environment protection committees will be appointed by the Secretary of State and their members appointed under membership schemes prepared by the agency and approved, with or without modifications, by the Secretary of State in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Bill.
I can assure noble Lords that in appointing the chairmen and considering the membership scheme the Secretary of State will ensure that account is taken of the desirability of securing the representation of recreation, navigation and conservation interests. Schedule 3 also places a number of obligations on the agency to ensure that those likely to be interested are given the opportunity to make representations or objections as regards the schemes for appointment of members to each of the regional advisory committees.
These provisions should ensure that recreation and navigation interests are properly represented. However, we recognise that because the responsibilities of the agency will be wider than those of the NRA it is possible that the environment protection advisory committees would not be able to do full justice to recreation and navigation issues. It is for that reason we have provided that the agency may, with the consent of Ministers, consult additionally the fisheries committees as to the way in which it performs its duties in respect of recreation, navigation, or indeed conservation, and may expand their membership accordingly. The provision is there to meet the concerns that have been raised, and it can be used if need be. This may not be necessary, in which case the provision need not be used. In view of this, we consider that there is no need for combined fisheries, recreation and navigation advisory committees to be established by the Bill.
This particular amendment has attracted a good deal of interest from noble Lords around the House. Therefore, I have sought to explain rather carefully the Government's thinking. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having explained his reasons in some detail. I will go away and look at them carefully. I am not surprised at the siren voices ranged against me. In fairness to my noble friend Lord Moran who speaks of the dilution of the fishing lobby's interests, I too am very concerned about the dilution of the navigation interests. But the Minister has given me slight comfort by saying that he feels the matter will be suitably covered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, for his support. However, in the light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [The Scottish Environment Protection Agency]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 20, line 19, at end insert:
("(3) SEPA shall, in exercising any of its powers under any enactment, protect and enhance the environment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 61 has been linked with Amendment No. 74 in my name and also with Amendment No. 75 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
The Minister will be aware that during the Committee stage of the Bill the general consensus after considerable debate was that both the environmental agency and SEPA required clearly defined purposes centring about environmental protection and enhancement. As described by the Government on a number of occasions, the purpose of the establishment of the agencies is exactly that: the protection and enhancement of the environment. During the debate in Committee the Minister made it clear that
"Environmental protection and enhancement are, indeed, the main purposes for which the agencies are being established."—[Official Report, 17/1/95; col. 548.]
Such a purpose is also quoted in the draft sustainable development guidance. When asked why the purpose quoted in the guidance could not be used on the face of the Bill, the Minister replied that the Government were concerned that it would render the guidance inflexible.
It is our concern that those new large quangos will have a flexible purpose and be open to modification at the whim of Ministers, and without recourse. That is worrying. A further argument advanced by the Government against giving the agencies a clearly defined purpose on the face of the Bill was that they are due to inherit a long list of functions already prescribed in legislation, and an attempt to give them an overriding statutory purpose might create duplication or conflict. That surely must be a good reason why the agency requires such a clearly defined role.
The new agencies are effectively merging a large number of independent organisations, each with different areas of work and emphasis. In the light of that, it would appear that they have a greater need than ever for a single overall clearly defined role, and that they are given directions by which they can organise themselves and function in a holistic fashion. I hope that the Minister will look on the amendment favourably. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, before speaking to Amendment No. 75, I declare an interest as a modest landowner in Scotland and member of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, of which I am a member by subscription. I thank the noble Earl, the Minister, and his officials for meeting us recently, but I fear that further clarification is needed. I have read the Minister's reply in Committee to an amendment similar to Amendment No. 75, and I note that the Secretary of State will consult
1688
the eight specified bodies and others before giving guidance to SEPA with respect to its aims and objectives.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister why there is a reluctance to put the bodies mentioned in the amendment on the face of the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in supporting Amendment No. 75, I should declare an interest, in that I own modest land in Scotland which could be affected by the Bill and all the amendments to which I shall speak tonight. The amendment was ably moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Balfour and supported then by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. But I have to agree with the noble Earl that the assurances then given on behalf of the Government by my noble friend on the Front Bench were not entirely reassuring.
If my noble friend and the Government are prepared to guarantee that the Secretary of State will consult all the categories mentioned in the amendment, then I cannot see that there is any harm in making sure of them on the face of the Bill. Clause 29(1) requires that the Secretary of State shall from time to time give SEPA guidance as to the aims and objectives which he considers it should pursue in the performance of its functions.
Subsection (2) requires that guidance to point SEPA towards achieving sustainable development. I am not quite sure that anyone knows what sustainable development really means, although we all approve of it in theory. Whatever it means, it certainly encompasses a very broad church of possible activity. To illustrate this point, could I ask my noble friend if integrated river catchment management could be covered by subsection (2)? I believe it could, which would confirm that the clause has very wide implications.
Be that as it may, subsection (3) of Clause 29 is very strong stuff indeed. It says:
"In performing its functions, SEPA shall have regard to guidance given [by the Secretary of State) under this Section".
So we are not dealing with guidance which SEPA may easily ignore or, indeed, ignore at all. The clause as it stands appears to me draconian and does not require the Secretary of State to consult with anyone at all. It is for those reasons that the noble Earl and I, and others, believe that all the consultees should be on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State would, of course, be free to consult others if he so wished.
The Bill is a longish document, running to some 267 pages at the moment. It would not be made noticeably longer by the addition of the 14 lines required by the amendment. However, it would be much improved. I very much hope that my noble friend can accept the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I shall refer first to Amendments Nos. 61 and 74, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I can assure the noble Lord that we want SEPA to protect and, where possible, to enhance the environment. Such an aim is already included in the draft management statement and in the outline of the scope of guidance

1689
which we intend to issue under Clause 29. The agency is of course to be called the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The question, therefore, seems to be whether that aspiration should be enshrined in legislation.
In practice, an aim of this type in a management statement or guidance can sit more comfortably alongside any duties of the agency which could in other circumstances have led to conflict with the aim. However, if that non-statutory aim were to be enshrined in the Bill as a duty, along the lines of Amendment No. 61, there would be no obvious way of establishing a hierarchy of action. Certainly the guidance proposed in Amendment No. 74, might help. But, as guidance, it could not resolve the legal wrangles which a duty of the nature proposed could cause.
The noble Lord stressed that flexibility is one of the underpinning issues that he would be seeking from the agency. By having the objective of SEPA issued in a management statement and guidance, I believe that we shall achieve that flexibility with the other aims that SEPA will be pursuing.
Given the fact that SEPA would already have a more defined focus on the prevention and control of pollution than the Environment Agency for England and Wales, which would have wider functions, the Government are not convinced that it is necessary for SEPA to have a principal aim set out in legislation.
Amendment No. 75, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, to which my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch spoke and to which he has also attached his name, would set out in detail on the face of the Bill the bodies that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State must consult before issuing guidance to SEPA on its aims and objectives. As regards whether or not it would be appropriate to include such a list of consultees for the guidance on the face of the Bill, I can confirm that the bodies included in the amendment would, in either event, be consulted.
I agree with the principle behind the amendment; namely, that statutory consultation in relation to the guidance should take place with interested parties. The Government will, therefore, bring forward a suitable amendment on Third Reading. I should add that that amendment will also incorporate appropriate provisions for publicity.
I should tell my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that we shall consider carefully what he said about whether or not such bodies should be on the face of the Bill. He described sustainable development as being a policy area that incorporates a "broad church" of activity. If anything, I suggest that it is because sustainable development covers almost all human activity that we are reluctant actually to start specifying individual interest groups on the face of the Bill for fear of having to run to many pages of legislation to cover all such parties. However, I have given the assurance that those bodies mentioned in the amendment will be consulted in the formulation of Clause 29 guidance.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I invite him to withdraw his amendments on that basis. I would also ask my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, to withdraw
1690
Amendment No. 75 on the basis of the undertaking that I have given about a government amendment on Third Reading.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, that is probably the most generous thing that has happened to me this evening while I have been sitting here for many hours listening to the debates. It would be very wrong of me not to welcome the Minister's concession. However, in his later reply, could the Minister give me a definition of the expression "the hierarchy of action"? I wondered exactly what he meant. I can see it vaguely as meaning that the same thing would come to the top every time. But, if you have basic principles such as those suggested in my amendment, which are so simple, then the prime motive should be fairly clear to most reasonable people. I must admit that I have not heard that phrase before; and, indeed, I am dying to use it at some point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [The Scottish Environment Protection Agency]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 136, line 26, leave out from ("appoint") to ("such") in line 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Transfer of functions to SEPA]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 21, leave out lines 4 to 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the proposals in the Bill, contrary to seeking to strengthen the organisation of environmental protection in Scotland, merely seek to supplant the operational aspects of pollution control work which should be a matter for locally based personnel, locally accountable and remaining as close as possible to the industries and communities with which, and within which, they operate. District and islands councils in Scotland have been responsible since 1975 for waste regulation in Scotland, first, in terms of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and, since May 1994, under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 which brought into force the licensing provisions of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The principle of separation of regulation from operation in the area of waste disposal is already achieved through administrative arrangements made by local authorities. I am not aware of hard evidence to support the case for physical separation of these functions.
New powers were given to district and islands councils to implement local authority air pollution control (LAAPC) in terms of Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 over "less polluting processes". These new controls came into effect only in April of 1992 following a very great deal of preparatory work, including the training of enforcement officers. It is scarcely credible that after such a short time the Government should propose to remove these duties from local authorities in Scotland, especially as their English counterparts are, as far as I understand the Bill, to retain the function. Has there been any criticism of Scottish

1691
local authorities in their carrying out of local authority air pollution control? It is clearly anomalous that differences should exist in Scotland when the 1990 Act is a Great Britain measure. The logic behind the argument is that there are fewer air emission processes which fall under the scope of the regulations in Scotland than in England and Wales.
I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on this matter before I decide whether to withdraw the amendment. Even if I do, I may return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord in moving Amendment No. 63 has raised a number of topics. He asked whether there have been any complaints to date about the role of the local authorities in Scotland in controlling air polluting processes. I can confirm that there have been absolutely no complaints whatsoever about the local authority administration of this policy. Indeed, I believe there have been no complaints about any of the constituent ingredients going into SEPA. Generally it is realised that all these functions can be done much better if they are done on an integrated basis by a central agency rather than on a segregated basis across the country.
Further, the noble Lord asked why it was necessary at all to centralise the duty given that the local authorities have only had this duty for a comparatively short time in Scotland. In Scotland there are, I believe, some 1,100 processes throughout the whole country that qualify as LAAPC processes, whereas in England and Wales I believe there are some 12,000 or 14,000. Therefore in Scotland it makes considerable sense to centralise the management of those 1,000 to 1,200 processes with one group of skilled personnel, whereas in England it would be unrealistic to hope to manage all 14,000 processes from one central unit.
I turn now to the rest of the ground that the noble Lord covered. Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which the noble Lord mentioned, disposal authorities are responsible for the disposal and regulation of waste. Clause 21(1) (c) therefore seeks to transfer only those functions which cover waste regulation. Waste disposal functions will remain with local authorities.
The functions of disposal authorities under the 1974 Act are being progressively replaced by new provisions in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There may therefore be no need to transfer the specified functions of disposal authorities to SEPA because there may be no existing functions to transfer. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it would be better to include this provision than to omit it and be left with a possible legislative gap. I do not believe that it would make much organisational sense to leave local authorities with responsibility for licensing one or two waste sites at the most when the overwhelming number of waste sites would be regulated by SEPA.
I hope that the noble Lord understands the explanation I have given. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I grasped roughly what the Minister meant. He said that
1692
there had been no complaints about the present system. I thought that we were in an age when if something is not broken you do not repair it. I read out the number of Acts that have been passed on this subject in the past few years, which is quite horrendous.
I accept the point that because England is so much bigger it would be difficult to handle the matter from the centre. That is a factor which is in the Minister's favour. I shall consider his statement with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to SEPA]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 23, line 20, at end insert ("but only after consultation with SEPA and, in the case of a scheme which was approved by him (with or without modifications), after consultation with the local authority which submitted the scheme to him for approval.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Transfers of property etc: supplemental provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Consultation with respect to drainage works]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 23, line 38, leave out ("pollution to controlled waters") and insert ("any environmental damage").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 67 it may be convenient to speak also to Amendment No. 68.
The amendment makes certain changes to the provisions of Clause 24 relating to consultation with respect to drainage works to ensure that those who carry out such works properly inform SEPA regarding the effect of the works and carry out SEPA's recommendations to prevent environmental damage.
The provisions regarding the obligation to consult with SEPA in respect of drainage works require to be strengthened. The clause limits the duty to consult to obtaining views about the precautions which should be taken to prevent pollution to controlled waters. The amendment seeks to extend the advice from SEPA to preventing environmental damage. It would have a duty to ensure that its advice was guided towards protecting against environmental damage. So there is no need for the Secretary of State to make regulations exempting certain drainage works from Clause 24(1). It is inappropriate for the Bill to have a circumvention provision of this nature.
I hope that the Minister will agree that again this is a neater way of dealing with the matter than that suggested in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. However, I believe that it would increase SEPA's interest in drainage works considerably beyond its normal span of responsibilities. There is one very clear reason why it would make sense for SEPA to he consulted as to the precautions to prevent pollution

1693
resulting from drainage works. If pollution was to result from the carrying on of such works, SEPA might have to prepare a case for the procurator fiscal. The agency would have no corresponding role if the drainage works were alleged to have caused other environmental damage.
Behind this amendment seems to lie the noble Lord's ambition to expand the role of SEPA beyond the clearly focused regulatory body charged with the prevention and control of pollution, which the Government believe to be most appropriate. As we have debated at length in Committee the broad principle of the scope of SEPA's functions, I do not believe that your Lordships would wish me to repeat the arguments again.
Amendment No. 68 requires SEPA's views, or "recommendations" as they are styled, to be followed. This would leave no discretion. SEPA's advice would have to be taken and acted upon in each and every case. Whatever the agency says, the person carrying on the works would have to comply.
This would be an extremely onerous requirement. Even the system of integrated pollution control includes an appeals procedure, which would enable an operator to challenge a decision of the agency. Yet, in relation to these consultation arrangements a person would be obliged to accept SEPA's views lock, stock and barrel.
It is right that SEPA's views should be made available and taken into account, but it is for those carrying out drainage works to accept the final responsibility for their actions. To do otherwise would be to distort the meaning of "consultation" as it applies generally in practice and in statute.
What the noble Lord is suggesting in the second amendment is more akin to a system of consent rather than consultation. No case has been made that this level of regulatory burden, which would unduly interfere with the execution of such works, is justified.
The noble Lord did not feel that there was need for exemptions to be issued by the Secretary of State. However, once again I have to point out, as I believe I did at Committee stage, that some drainage works carried out in Scotland would be of a minor nature, involving maintenance or small repairs to farm field drains, and so forth. It would clearly be sensible for the Secretary of State to consider how best to deploy the resources available to SEPA and therefore to focus those resources on that part of the drainage activity which most required attention.
On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the trouble he has taken to explain the Government's view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [Power of SEPA to purchase land compulsorily]:
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 24, line 2, at end insert ("—but only—

(a) after SEPA has taken all reasonable steps to reach agreement for purchase of the land and has been unable to do so on terms which the Secretary of State considers reasonable; and

(b) it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the land he purchased compulsorily.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69, I speak also to Amendment No. 70.
Clause 25 provides that the Secretary of State may authorise SEPA to purchase land compulsorily. I have no argument with that, but would like to see some mention that the powers will be used only as a very last resort. In his reply to a similar point at Committee stage, the Minister said:
"The Secretary of State will act as a safety net against any such unreasonable use of such powers. In a sense, he acts to protect against the abuse of such powers".—[Official Report, 26/1/95; col. 1223.]
As the Secretary of State authorises the use of compulsory purchase powers, but must also guard against their abuse, I wonder whether the Secretary of State will have a conflict of interest. This was certainly recognised in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 and a special parliamentary procedure, as in Amendment No. 70, is in place. It is to be hoped that compulsory purchase powers will have to he used only rarely, but when they are, individual landowner's rights must be protected. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, who has ably moved Amendment No. 69, and to speak to Amendment No. 70 which requires a compulsory order to be subject to a special parliamentary procedure if the owner of the land in question objects to its compulsory acquisition. At Committee stage, an amendment similar to Amendment No. 69 was moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour and supported by the noble Earl.
I have to say that I agree with the noble Earl that the reply of my noble friend from the Front Bench did not strike me as reassuring. My noble friend suggested that the Secretary of State could be relied on in future to act as a shield against any unreasonable use of the absolute power of compulsory purchase which is now contained in Clause 25.
I have to suggest to my noble friend that that cannot be right. Whatever faith one may be tempted to place in a Conservative Secretary of State—and mine would not be complete because even Conservative Secretaries of State are human and seem to be more and more under the influence of their civil servants—I fear we must face the ghastly prospect that one day, within the lifetime of the Bill when it has become an Act, a Socialist Secretary of State might hold office. I would, of course, agree with my noble friend that such a prospect is not only unpleasant but also remote. Nevertheless, it does exist and the Bill should be amended to cater for the eventuality, however distant.

1695
That is a general and rather obvious reason why the amendment should be included in the Bill. But there are other more specific and perhaps more important reasons. The first is that the amendment mirrors subsection (4) of Section 5 of the Scottish natural heritage Act, which was included in the SNH Bill by your Lordships' House under the far-sighted influence of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who piloted that Bill through this House in 1991. All the arguments which applied to SNH and which were accepted by your Lordships and the other place apply to SEPA. Indeed, some of them apply more strongly in SEPA's case than they did for SNH.
SNH has been and is a success. It has done much to promote harmony in Scotland between the various different interests which bear upon the land and which have often been in conflict. It is generally accepted that the root of much of its success lies in the amendments to the SNH Bill which were carried in your Lordships' House, even though some of them were controversial at the time, and in the amendments agreed here by the Government, guided by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
One of the most important of your Lordships' amendments was to insert the protection for landowners to be found in Section 5 (4) of the SNH Act, which Amendment No. 70 today imitates. I said that the argument in favour of this amendment is, if anything, stronger in this Bill than it was in the SNH Bill. This is so because, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, has rightly pointed out, SEPA is to be very much more the creature of the Secretary of State than was or is SNH. As drafted, Clauses 29, 30 and 38 of this Bill ensure that. So SEPA will not be, as originally intended by the Government, an agency at arm's length from government. It will, alas, in most respects be an arm of the Secretary of State.
This state of affairs, which many might regard as unfortunate, means that the protection afforded by this amendment is more needed than it was for SNH. Even a well-intentioned Secretary of State would find himself more in conflict with his duty to safeguard an individual from SEPA (which will be largely his alter ego) than he would have done with SNH as originally designed. For all these reasons, I very much hope that my noble friend can accept the amendment.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch have both spoken to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. Amendment No. 69 would prescribe on the face of the Bill the conditions which would have to be met before the use of SEPA's powers to purchase land compulsorily. Amendment No. 70 would mean that the compulsory purchase order would be subject to special parliamentary procedure in the event of any objections to it.
At present, the Secretary of State has powers to authorise river purification boards to purchase land compulsorily under Section 9 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951. Local authorities also have similar powers under separate legislation. Clause 25 of the Bill does not therefore introduce anything new; it merely re-enacts this existing power in respect of
1696
SEPA and extends it to all the agency's functions. The powers under the 1951 Act have not in fact ever been exercised. I point out to my noble friend that that is despite the passage of many Secretaries of State from both main parties. There is no reason to suggest that the establishment of SEPA will materially alter the need to exercise compulsory purchase powers.
I can assure the House, and my noble friend and the noble Earl in particular, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would authorise SEPA to use such powers in relation to specific land required by the agency to discharge its functions effectively only in circumstances where other locations were unsuitable and where it was not possible for a reasonable agreement between SEPA and the landowner to be reached. In other words, I can categorically say to the noble Earl that this compulsory purchase power would be a last-resort option open to the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl also suggested the possibility of a conflict of role for the Secretary of State in discharging this duty. I stress to him and my noble friend that the Secretary of State will be able to prevent misuse by authorising only in reasonable circumstances. Therefore, it is not so much a conflict as a prevention of a misuse of a power.
My noble friend Lord Pearson explained that he based his amendment on the limits imposed on SNH's use of its compulsory purchase powers. Given that the compulsory purchase of land has the potential to be a powerful tool in the hands of a nature conservation body to further its interests, we agreed that it was necessary to limit the exercise of such powers to fairly specific circumstances in the case of SNH. However, the purchase of such land is not a normal means of preventing or controlling pollution, and there is therefore not the same risk of these powers being used by the SEPA as a means to help achieve its objectives.
If my noble friend feels, on reflection, that further discussion is needed, I suggest that this discussion is pursued between now and the next stage of Bill, so that we can try and sort out where we may have ground that is common to us both.
Given those reassurances, I hope that both noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendment.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very full reply, which I should like to read in Hansard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 69.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 70:
Page 24, line 7, at end insert:
("(3) Where the Secretary of State or SEPA has prepared a proposal which involves the compulsory acquisition of land, a compulsory purchase order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the owner of the land and has not been withdrawn.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it is order for me also, as the mover of Amendment No. 70, to thank my noble friend for what he said, and to say that I very much welcome his offer of further discussion on the compulsory purchase powers of the Bill before we reach

1697
Third Reading. I would just point out that, although I accept what he said about the pollution control powers of SEPA, I think we need to have further talk in regard to the powers towards the natural heritage which are also bestowed on SEPA. I look forward to those discussions.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 25, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 72 and 73. These amendments would ensure that SEPA makes its records open to inspection by the public.
As the Bill stands, the use of the words,
"may afford members of the public … facilities for inspecting … those records",
is unsatisfactory. It leaves the decision to the discretion of SEPA.
In addition, the amendment would ensure that merely inspecting records is free, and where charges are made for photocopying, they do not exceed local copying costs. I spoke about this matter in Committee.
There must be this right for the public. You can go to the national archives in Scotland and get almost any other record. You can go to the local library and get details of local council meetings. And of course the press attend most council meetings. You can even attend the committees of local authorities now. This facility will not be abused; there will be only certain matters for which certain people will wish to be there. It is extremely important that these amendments, or others that are in empathy with them, should be accepted. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 73 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, deal with measures related to public access to information held by SEPA. We covered this subject in some detail in Committee, as the noble Lord said. However, these amendments are specific to SEPA's preserved records—that is to say, those records which in the agency's view are worthy of preservation and are kept and managed accordingly.
Amendment No. 71 would require SEPA to make all of its preserved records available to the public. Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 taken together would mean that inspection of those records would be free of charge, and copies or extracts would be obtainable either free of charge or on the payment of local photocopying rates.
The specific provisions in respect of preserved records are in addition to provisions in the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, which do give the public a right of access to information. SEPA will not therefore have the discretion to withhold information without good cause. Only exemptions permitted by the regulations will be possible.
1698
Preserved records may contain sensitive information, just like any other records. I should not therefore support an absolute requirement to give the public access to all of SEPA's preserved records. Such a requirement may mean that companies would be reluctant to pass commercially confidential information to SEPA because the agency would be obliged to make that information publicly available. That would surely interfere with the efficiency with which SEPA is able to pursue its duties. Moreover, their manner and location of storage may make public access quite tricky. If the inconvenience and staff time involved appears disproportionate to the value of the data on the record, then it is surely right that SEPA should have some discretion.
Amendment No. 72 would use the approach that we have adopted to public registers and apply it to preserved records. However, I believe that there is a clear distinction between a public register, which exists solely as a means of making information about authorisations and consents readily available, and records, which have other justifications.
The clause as drafted in the Bill would enable SEPA to make inspection facilities freely available; but it also gives the agency the flexibility to charge a reasonable amount. Free access to registers is one thing, and it would be appropriate for SEPA to bear the costs involved; but access to preserved records has much wider implications because of the sheer scale of material stored. Against that background, I believe that it is right and proper that SEPA should be able to recover some or all of the expense involved.
I also believe that SEPA should have the scope to recover, through reasonable charges, the costs involved in obtaining copies or extracts of records. I cannot therefore accept Amendment No. 73, which would restrict payments to "local photocopying rates", assuming that such a term can be defined. One of the potential benefits of SEPA is consistency of procedures and I would hope for a standard photocopying charge, not fluctuations depending on which local office is involved. Again, the clause as drafted in the Bill does not require there to be a charge. But if one were to be levied, I think that SEPA should be able to recover some or all of its costs.
The Government recognise the importance of public access to environmental information. The amendments would, however, unduly fetter SEPA's discretion and possibly tie up staff resources, which could be better deployed on tasks more central to pollution control. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I understand the point made by the Minister about the records and competition and the disadvantage that could be incurred by people doing specific work of whatever nature for the agency. But I find it difficult to believe that there is any great loss in payment at local photocopying rates, when one considers that practically every new post office in the country has a little machine in the corner from which for two or three shillings (in old money) a member of staff could obtain copies. Also,

1699
most libraries have a machine that will make copies. It makes one wonder whether there is any eagerness to let the public know what is happening.
The Earl of Lindsay: Perhaps I may point out that this point was touched on earlier at Committee stage. The photocopying machine in the corner of a post office or library which charges a certain number of pence per copy is a machine to which you take the information that you have brought to the premises, photocopy it yourself and again leave the premises. With SEPA you may go in and request information which may not even be stored in that building and which has to be retrieved from another building, and so on. There is a worry that a disproportionate amount of SEPA's resources may be deployed in simply retrieving pieces of paper from other buildings at too low a cost in these circumstances.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the speech of the Minister cleared up some points. I have no objection to such a situation in that there are bound to be delays and so forth, as there are with wills and things like that. But after a certain time a will can be obtained merely by going to the appropriate office in Edinburgh. We are not suggesting that a person should be able to go to a village in Scotland and demand that somebody be sent to obtain a record. The individual involved must obtain it.
I have a feeling that we are not going to get a great deal further with this matter tonight. We have raised the point and I hope that at some future date we shall be able to look at it again—perhaps not in this Bill but in some other Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No 72 to 74 not moved.]
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75:
Page 25, line 29, at end insert:
("(4) The Secretary of State shall consult the bodies and persons specified in subsection (5) below before giving guidance under subsection (1) above.
(5) The bodies and persons mentioned in subsection (4) above are—

(a) SEPA;

(b) Scottish Natural Heritage;

(c) Historic Scotland;

(d) Scottish Enterprise;

(e) Highlands and Islands Enterprise;

(f) the East of Scotland Water Authority;

(g) the West of Scotland Water Authority;

(h) the North of Scotland Water Authority;

(i) such bodies, representing the owners and occupiers of land, and industry in Scotland, as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult; and

(j) such other persons as he considers it appropriate to consult.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and look forward to the Government's amendment at Third Reading. In the meantime, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 30 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 25, line 36, after ("architectural") insert (", engineering").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Kintore The Earl of Kintore moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 25, line 40, at end insert "and—

(d) to have regard to the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry;

(e) to have regard to the need for social and economic development in Scotland or any part of Scotland; and

(f) to have regard to the interest of owners and occupiers of land and of local communities.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I can be brief in speaking to this amendment following the acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to consider the Scottish aspect in Amendment No. 79 before Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in supporting Amendment No. 79 I shall recall what I said in relation to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wade.
I begin by reminding your Lordships of the passage of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill through your Lordships' House. Clause 3 of the SNH Act includes the words,
"it shall be the duty of SNH in exercising its functions to take such account as may be appropriate in the circumstances of".
It then goes on to identify various categories which SNH is obliged to consider, including,
"(b) the needs of agriculture, fisheries and forestry; … (e) the interests of owners and occupiers of land; and (f) the interests of local communities".
I think I am right in saying that all those categories were inserted into the SNH Bill either by Divisions in your Lordships' House or by agreement with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who was in charge of the Bill. Here again, exactly the same arguments apply to our consideration of SEPA's duties (especially when they are physically linked with those of the Secretary of State as they are in the first line of Clause 30) as applied to our consideration of SNH's duties in 1991, which then led us to make the changes in that Bill to which I referred.
In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend will feel able to consult with those of us who are interested in the clause before he brings forward amendments similar to the ones made to Clause 7 earlier this evening.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Amendment No. 79, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would place balancing duties on the Secretary of State and SEPA in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry, social and economic development and the interests of owners and occupiers of land and of local communities.

1701
I envisage that the matters addressed by this amendment will be covered by the guidance we will issue under Clause 29. Nevertheless, I shall consider further whether additional balancing duties should be written on the face of the Bill. The Government will bring forward their own amendment at Third Reading. In framing our amendment, we shall certainly wish to take the noble Earl's amendment into account during our deliberations, and indeed everything that has been said tonight. We shall also want to look at any implications for Scotland resulting from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wade to Clause 7 in relation to the environment agency for England and Wales. On that basis, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 26, line 3, after ("architectural") insert (", engineering").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 32 [General duties with respect to water]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Incidental general functions]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 29, line 21, after ("property") insert ("and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 88 and 89. I shall speak to all three amendments. Amendment No. 88, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, seeks to delete the power under Clause 35(1) (b) for the environment agency to institute criminal proceedings. I would stress that the NRA already has this power under Section 4(1) (b). The NRA has made good use of this power. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the agency should be denied the power which the NRA now has and has needed to use in order to carry out its functions. I am sure that my noble friend will want to speak to the amendment but I have indicated that I believe that the power is required. Indeed, in Committee I undertook to consider an amendment from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell about the agency's ability to institute civil proceedings also. I am giving careful consideration to what might need to be done in this respect. However, I wish to clarify the position which we have been discussing about the environment agency's powers under Clause 35(1) to institute criminal proceedings. Amendments Nos. 87 and 89 are minor and technical government amendments which make it clear that the environment agency and not SEPA has the power to bring criminal proceedings and that it may do so only in respect of England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89. I assure my noble
1702
friend on the Front Bench that it is not the intention of Amendment No. 88 to delete the power of any agency to institute criminal proceedings. The intention is to make it quite clear by the deletion of this line that the power extends to both criminal and civil proceedings. I rely for this on the contention that under subsection (1) (a) the powers granted are sufficient to cover both civil and criminal proceedings and that the reference to criminal proceedings is not necessary in subsection (1) (b).
I go back to the discussions in Committee on 31st January (at cols. 1343 and 1344 of the Official Report) when my noble friend Lord Mills sought to introduce a specific reference to civil proceedings. On that occasion my noble friend assured him that subsection (1) (a) was sufficient to cover the civil proceedings.
I would use the same argument in relation to criminal proceedings. I go a stage further and say that I do not believe that my noble friend's answer in Committee was completely correct. Certainly, there is bound to be doubt that civil proceedings are included in the wording at present in line 23. Although it appears to be covered as an example of a general list of things which the agencies can do, nevertheless there is another principle that the reference to one matter may be thought to exclude the other. Therefore, there would be a very considerable body of opinion which would say that when criminal proceedings are referred to it is automatically suggested that civil proceedings are not included.
Having dealt with my own Amendment No. 88, as regards the way in which the Bill stands at the moment, I should look at the two amendments in the name of my noble friend. He said that they are simple drafting amendments. I agree that the drafting of line 23 may be defective. I do not believe that it would be improved all that much by Amendment No. 89 to add as a limp tail to a list of things which each new agency may do the bald rider that the English and Welsh agency may,
"institute proceedings in England and Wales".
In my opinion, that flies in the face of good and clear drafting. It is both confusing to the reader and leaves at large and in limbo the question of what proceedings may be instituted by the Scottish agency. I have some considerable doubt as to when and where the English and Welsh agency may institute civil proceedings.
At this late hour, I suggest that my noble friend might take this matter away. The point which my noble friend wishes to make can best be dealt with and best made with a different amendment altogether delegating to the generality of subsection (1) (a), and that the Bill would be improved by the acceptance of my Amendment No. 88 to which Amendment No. 87 is a most welcome paving amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, in speaking to the previous amendment, I addressed this amendment. I believe that we tabled these amendments to make certain that there was no doubt remaining on the face of the Bill. I said as regards the previous amendment that I needed to look to see whether the agency's ability to institute civil proceedings was there. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was concerned about that. I have given careful consideration to what might be done in

1703
that respect. I believe that the Government amendments are the correct ones in the correct place in order to clear up doubts.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am entitled to rise after the Minister. It is clear that I am not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 29, leave out line 23 and insert:
("and the Agency may institute criminal proceedings in England and Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 29, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) Each new Agency shall work with such industry bodies as it considers appropriate to promote in the United Kingdom—

(a) research into clean technology; and

(b) monitoring of the use of clean technology.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendment No. 91. We had a short debate in Committee on these two matters. I thought it worthwhile raising them again at Report stage in the hope that we might get something more encouraging from the Government than we had in Committee. It seems to us that both agencies should encourage research into clean technology and monitor its use. This is a very simple proposition. As we have argued from Second Reading onwards, the agencies are not simply a joining together of three bodies, as some have tried to pretend. Their remit is much wider than that and, in our view, part of that remit should be the subjects mentioned in Amendment No. 90.
As regards Amendment No. 91, it is again a question of promoting the proper reporting by private companies, government departments and other bodies of the effects on the environment of their activities. As I said in Committee, the CBI and local authorities have gone quite some way in that regard. It is a matter of general interest and I very much hope that the Government will accept that it is a proper function of the agency to engage in such promotion. As I have said, I am waiting for words of encouragement from the Minister so I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, he has returned to these two subjects which he raised during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I hope that this time I can satisfy him as to why I do not think that his amendments are necessary.
Amendment No. 90 seeks to place a duty on the agency to promote research into clean technology, and also to promote monitoring of its use. The agency is already required under Clause 5(4) to follow developments in technology and techniques for preventing or minimising or remedying or mitigating the effects of pollution on the environment. Clause 35(5) (a) places a duty on each new agency to make arrangements
1704
for the carrying out of research and related activities, whether by itself or others, in respect of matters to which its functions relate. Where clean technology can make a contribution to controlling or preventing environmental pollution, the agency already has clear duties. Similarly, Clause 5(2) requires the agency to compile information relating to pollution of the environment, whether obtained through its own monitoring or other activities, or from other sources, for the purposes of facilitating the carrying out of its pollution control functions or enabling it to form an opinion of the general state of environmental pollution.
In addition, in exercising its IPC functions, each agency must encourage the use of the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC), and the concept of the best practicable environmental option underlies many of the agencies' functions. BATNEEC in itself encourages innovation, and this seems the appropriate way for regulatory bodies such as the agencies to encourage clean technology.
Amendment No. 91 seeks to place a duty on each new agency to promote the proper reporting by private companies, government departments, local authorities and other appropriate public bodies of the environmental effects of their activities. I would not wish to disagree that such reporting on environmental performance is something we would wish to encourage; we would also wish to see the development of business-led good practice in environmental reporting, and similar initiatives throughout the public sector. But I am not persuaded that that is a role for the agencies.
Of course it is right that, in seeking authorisations for potentially polluting processes, companies should assess and provide information on environmental impacts. That is why the Environmental Protection Act 1990 already provides for this. Similarly, the agencies will deal with local authorities at a local and practical level in the context of carrying out their pollution control and water management functions. I do not think that promoting environmental reporting to local government fits in naturally with this, or that it is something the agencies should logically do. Government departments are required to carry out environmental assessments of key new policies, and to make an environmental statement in their annual departmental reports or equivalent documents. And while we would indeed wish to encourage other public bodies to set out details of their environmental performance, I do not think it is for the agency to decide which of those bodies should be encouraged to do so. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I am reasonably satisfied with his reply to Amendment No. 90 although I shall have to read what he said in the light of his reference to provisions in the Bill. However, I am not satisfied with his reply to Amendment No. 91. I believe that it is a proper function for the agency to do what the amendment asks. Again, that is a difference between us about the agency's role and how wide it should be. We believe that it should be wider than the Government at present intend. However, at this time of night and at this

1705
stage of the Bill I am not prepared to press the matter, but I give notice to the Government that this will certainly be taken up when the Bill goes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.92:
Page 29, line 43, leave out ("appropriate") and insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 92 I wish at the outset to thank the Minister for a very useful exchange of letters. I also thank his officials for some very useful consultations over this and other matters to which I shall return, probably next week. Your Lordships may feel that this amendment is only a matter of perception. However, I draw attention to what the Minister said in Committee when he set out the two categories of information that might be made available by the agency. The first is that obtained through pure research. The other, which is of more concern to me, is environmental information which the agency obtains through its statutory duties. The agency is under a duty to make that information available at reasonable charge, according to the environmental information regulations.
In the Minister's own words, there is doubt whether it is right to use the word "reasonable" or the word "appropriate". He says in his letter that the only doubt is whether the use of "reasonable" in the Bill will have unintended effects. I ask my noble friend why that doubt should arise when it has been used previously in primary legislation, notably in Section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974, although I accept that those provisions have now been superseded.
Perhaps I may say a little mischievously en passant that in Amendment No. 161 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ullswater the relevant wording is
"to secure that the registers maintained by them under this section are available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge…"
If it can be used effectively in the 1974 and 1990 Acts and in Amendment No. 161 in this Bill, why cannot it be used in the instance to which Amendment No. 92 refers? I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment No. 93 which is grouped with the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The purpose of Amendment No.93 is to ensure that the agency's power to charge such fee as it considers appropriate for research and related matters is subject to a reasonable cost.
Clause 35(5) (b) attempts to give the agency power to charge whatever sum it considers appropriate for the results of research and related activities. The advice that I have been given by EarthRights—the law and resources centre—is that Article 5 of Directive 90/313/EEC provides that any charge for the provision of the agency's environmental information may not exceed a reasonable cost. Therefore, EarthRights argue that the clause as it stands may be unlawful. The results
1706
of research and related activities carried out by the environmental agencies will virtually always constitute environmental information within the terms of the European directive. So, if the agencies' power to charge for the supply of that information where it was in the form of "research or related activities" was "such as it considers appropriate", there is a danger that the directive's requirement of "reasonable cost" would be evaded. I do not expect the Minister to comment on this in great detail at this time of night, but I request that he consider the matter further during the Bill's passage.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendment No. 92 would amend Clause 35(5) (b) to enable the agencies to charge a "reasonable" fee for research and related activities, instead of an "appropriate" charge, as currently provided.
I have some sympathy with my noble friend's wish to ensure that the charges which the agency makes for its research are reasonable. That is indeed the Government's intention, and I have considered the matter further since my noble friend raised the issue in Committee. However, I am advised by my lawyers that "appropriate" is the correct adjective to use in order to achieve that objective. It provides a wide discretion, from no charge at all—as is expressly provided by Clause 35(6)—to the market price. But while the agencies will have that discretion, they will also be fettered by the requirement that the charge is "appropriate". So, where it is appropriate to make research available free of charge the agencies can do so. On the other hand, where the market price is appropriate—as, for instance, in the development of a new piece of monitoring equipment—then the agencies may charge at that level. However, the agencies must not charge unreasonably. If they did so, they could be subject to judicial review.
My noble friend referred to other legislation where the term "reasonable" is used. I do not want to get into a long debate about the merits of existing legislation. I merely point out to him that Section 52 of the Environmental Protection Act, which is the section he quoted, concerns charges which may be levied by waste disposal and collection authorities on one another. It is right to use the word "reasonable" when determining statutory fees and charges, but what we are referring to in Clause 35 is payment for research and related activities. That needs to cover a range of charges, depending upon what is appropriate. All public bodies must act reasonably, and that applies to the agency in charging for research.
I hope I have convinced my noble friend that we have the right formulation for this provision, and that there is no intention of allowing the agency to make unreasonable charges for research and related activities.
Amendment No. 93, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would further amend Clause 35(5) (b) to make payment of charges subject to Article 5 of Directive 90/313 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, which says that charges must not exceed a reasonable cost. That directive has been transposed into law here by the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. Those regulations

1707
(Regulation 3(4) (a)) include provisions for the imposition of a charge on any person in respect of costs reasonably attributable to the supply of environmental information.
Since those regulations will apply directly to the supply of any environmental information by the agency, they already lead to the result that the noble Lord's amendment seeks to achieve. If any agency attempted to charge a fee for environmental information, and that fee exceeded what was permitted by Article 5 of the directive, it could be subject to judicial review. So I hope that with those words I have managed to persuade the noble Lord that his amendment is not required.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said, in connection with the term "appropriate" in Clause 35(5) (b), that a fee that was not appropriate could be challenged by way of judicial review. Will he confirm that with the fee being described as such as the agency considers appropriate, as distinct from such fee as is appropriate, the same degree of objectivity applies? In other words, will he confirm that the agency's discretion does not reduce the objectivity of the appropriateness of the fee, if I may put it in that way?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that under Clause 35(5) (b) the agency is in charge of:
"such fee as it considers appropriate",
so it is a responsibility of the agency. I believe that that is where the responsibility should lie, and so it should be subject to judicial review if the consideration is that the fee is inappropriate.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response, which I have to say was somewhat disappointing. He did not comment—I do not know whether he will—on the use of the word "reasonable" in Clause 54. It always amuses me that one calls in aid the lawyer's opinion; and we all know that one lawyer will give you one opinion while another will give you a different opinion. In the instance which I am discussing with your Lordships this evening, I cannot help thinking that there is a certain obstinacy in not acceding to my request. However, I do not believe that I can take the matter much further this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 94, I have to point out to the House that, if it were to be agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos. 95, 96 or 97.
Clause 37 [General duty of the new Agencies to have regard to costs and benefits in exercising powers]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 31, line 28, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("( ) The Ministers shall from time to time give guidance to each new Agency with respect to the new Agency's assessment, or otherwise, of the financial and environmental costs which are likely
1708
to be incurred and the financial and environmental benefits which are likely to accrue, in consequence of the exercise or non-exercise, or manner of the exercise, of a power of a new Agency.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that that proposal might be a relief at this time of night. However, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 94, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 102. Amendment No. 98 is also tabled in my name and is consequential.
I accept that the Government have moved considerably with their new definition, but I remain troubled by the provision in the Bill for assessing costs and benefits. It has been described as a "novel duty", which positively invites challenges by way of judicial review. Be that as it may—and I do not suggest that that is in any way an unimportant observation—I commented at the last stage of the Bill that, as technology was moving so fast in the environmental area and public assessment of the issues was also moving fast, certain factors were going somewhat against some of my other arguments on earlier clauses.
I wonder whether the issue of costs and benefits would not more appropriately be dealt with in guidance rather than in primary legislation. I suggest that because guidance could more easily be altered to reflect the changes which, as I say, may be both at the technological level and at the level of public awareness and public opinion. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 102 are grouped with the amendment now under consideration. Therefore, I am rather surprised that my noble friend Lord Marlesford did not address the matter when he had the opportunity. With one exception, this group of amendments seeks to amend the way in which the new agencies should take account of costs and benefits. The exception is that my noble friend wishes to remove Clause 37 from the Bill.
We have already discussed at length and agreed in Committee that Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill. I undertook then to consider the one outstanding point about the extent to which costs other than purely financial costs could be included. I have spoken to amendments this afternoon, which I intend to move shortly, which clarify the meaning of the term "costs" in Clause 37, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, drew attention. They ensure that environmental costs as well as financial and other costs are to be included in the agencies' assessment of likely costs and benefits. I therefore believe that Clause 37, amended in this way, should be included in the Bill. I believe that Clause 37, amended in the way I have explained, is the right approach to this subject.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 98 seek to replace subsection (1), which requires each new agency to take account of costs and benefits, with a new subsection which would require Ministers to give the agency guidance on costs and benefits. We have already said that we will give guidance on the taking into account of costs and benefits as part of the guidance on the contribution the agencies are to make to sustainable development. But we do not believe that the agencies' taking account of costs and benefits should simply be a matter for guidance; it is fundamental to the responsible

1709
operation of the agencies. I think that the amended version of this clause is what is required and sets out clearly what the agencies need to do. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I had hoped—as it states at the top of the groupings list that one can speak to any amendment in its place in the Marshalled List—to speak separately to Amendment No. 102, as it is a "stand part" amendment. Is that in order?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the grouping is for the convenience of the House, but as the groupings list makes clear, a noble Lord may speak to his amendment when it appears in the Marshalled List.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. My view remains that, particularly as the draft guidance alludes to the issue of costs in connection with the references to sustainable development, perhaps it would be better for the whole issue to be dealt with by way of guidance. But in view of the hour I do not seek to press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 31, line 28, after ("Agency") insert ("and any local authority to the extent specified in subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise briefly, and with some diffidence in view of the cross currents of the past few minutes, to move Amendment No. 95 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 99 and 101 in my name. It seems anomalous that the agencies should be under the costs and benefits duty but local authorities exercising similar statutory functions are not subject to those duties. This amendment, or Amendment No. 101, would extend Clause 37 to apply to the powers of local authorities in relation to local authority air pollution control, statutory nuisance and contaminated land. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 95, 99, and 101 spoken to by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, seek to apply to local authorities exercising powers with respect to local authority air pollution control (LAAPC), contaminated land and statutory nuisance, the duty to have regard to costs and benefits under Clause 37. I can, of course, understand the concern behind my noble friend's amendments, but I do not think that they are necessary or appropriate in this case. The agencies have a wide and complex range of functions; in addition to their core functions in respect of the control of wastes and industrial pollution, and water regulation, they will need to carry out research, make reports and, in fact, under Clause 35, will have powers to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of their functions. The powers of local authorities which are caught by my noble friend's amendments have none of this breadth and complexity, but the statutes under which they operate address the issue in other ways.
1710
In the case of statutory nuisance, local authorities are already required to use the best practicable means to deal with the nuisance. The definition of this under Section 79(9) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes specific reference to the need for financial implications to be taken into account with other factors.
For local authority air pollution control under Part I of the 1990 Act, local authorities are required to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC). My right honourable friend the Secretary of State issues comprehensive statutory guidance for local authorities on what constitutes BATNEEC for each category of industry. This is issued only after close consultation with the representatives of the industries concerned. In respect of contaminated land, the Bill already provides for the consideration of costs and benefits by enforcing authorities, which may be the agencies or local authorities. The new Section 78D(2) provides that enforcing authorities should have regard to costs and the seriousness of the harm or pollution of controlled waters in question when specifying what is to be required by way of remediation on any site.
I am not, therefore, persuaded that it is necessary for local authorities to have the further and additional proposed duty to have regard to costs and benefits. Costs and benefits are already taken into account by other means appropriate to these functions. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, at this hour I shall merely thank my noble friend for the comprehensiveness of his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 31, line 34, leave out from first ("the") to first ("of") in line 35 and insert ("likely costs and benefits").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 97 to 99 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 31, line 39, leave out ("or meet any aims or") and insert ("any").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 102:
Leave out Clause 37.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this amendment separately because I believe that the proposal to omit Clause 37 is a separate proposal although we have debated some aspects of that clause.
I have two reasons for believing that the clause is unnecessary. First, the new Clause 4, which the House has already agreed and which was welcomed, makes Clause 37 that much less necessary as it provides for a

1711
principal aim of the agency to be to take into account any likely costs. In addition to our discussions in Committee, that makes it less necessary for costs and benefits to be taken into account in a separate clause.
I also suggest that there is still a real danger of vexatious litigation, with requirements for judicial review, arising from decisions taken in the context of the provisions of Clause 37. I sent my noble friend a copy of the legal advice from the CPRE's honorary standing counsel, Mr. Jeremy Sullivan QC, who made it clear that in his opinion there was a real danger that the effect of this clause would be such vexatious litigation.
I therefore ask my noble friend to consider seriously whether it is necessary to include Clause 37 in the Bill. Perhaps he would like to give his view on that question.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, that seems to be a fair question, particularly in view of Amendment No. 124 which the noble Viscount will move and which includes "costs to the environment" in "costs". If anyone can calculate what environmental benefits are, I can guarantee that they will not be able to calculate environmental costs. Therefore, the whole of Clause 37 relating to cost benefit analysis, given that costs now include environmental costs, seems to be a nonsense.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I indicated, we have discussed this at length in Committee. I have no reason to believe that a requirement to take account of cost benefits is over-restrictive or bureaucratic. It does not override the agency's other duties and obligations. It applies to those areas of the agency's work where it has a discretion and ensures that the agency cannot incur or cause others to incur costs unjustified by the environmental benefits. It does not bite where it would be unreasonable—for example, in cases of emergency where the agency must be able to act immediately.
The proposal that the environment agency should have regard to compliance costs for industry when setting environmental standards was included in the consultation paper on the agency which was issued in 1991. It simply enshrines existing good practice in the legislation.
At Committee stage we had quite a long discussion on the concept of cost benefit analysis. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, indicated that it was one which industry was quite prepared to undertake. I believe that to be the case. That is the reason why I believe that Clause 37 should stand part of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am not convinced by what my noble friend says. Obviously we can take the matter no further tonight. It will be interesting to see whether further consideration of the Bill results in Clause 37 becoming part of the Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Ministerial directions to the new Agencies]:
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Power to make schemes imposing charges]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment Nos 104 to 110:
Page 33, leave out line 14.
Page 33, line 15, at end insert (", or any application for, or for a variation of, such a licence").
Page 33, line 18, at end insert (", or any application for such a transfer").
Page 33, line 19, after ("licence") insert (", or any application for such a renewal").
Page 33, line 19, leave out ("or").
Page 33, line 20, leave out (", or") and insert ("(where permitted) of an environmental licence, or any application for such a surrender; or
(g)").
Page 34, line 2, after ("procedure,") insert ("suspend or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 104 to 110, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 to 123 and 289. While I accept that this is a large group of government amendments, they are minor and technical amendments which deal with only three subjects.
First, Amendments Nos. 104 to 110 arise from my promise during Committee stage to consider points raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas in connection with the current charging schemes for waste management licensing. These amendments aim to clarify that charging schemes may cover all necessary activities in relation to the granting of environmental licences.
Secondly, the effect of Amendments Nos. 112 to 123 to Clauses 45 and 46 is to enable each new agency to borrow from the National Loans Fund as well as borrowing money voted by Parliament from Ministers.
Finally, I undertook at Committee stage to look again at the important issue raised by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills to Clause 52 regarding transitional provisions for charging schemes. Having considered the need for such a provision, I am now bringing forward Amendment No. 289 which includes in Schedule 19 transitional arrangements for charging schemes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 34, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) A new Agency must provide each applicant for, and holder of, an environmental licence with a copy of any charging scheme made by it, which is for the time being in force and which is likely to affect the applicant or holder.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 111 which goes back to the question that we discussed at Committee stage with respect to licence holders being advised of their responsibilities regarding charging. I have again to thank my noble friend for his letter of last evening in which he deals at some length with the matter of subsistence payments. That is quite clear to me.
However, I have to ask him this question. The Bill currently provides for the agency to take such steps as it considers appropriate for bringing the provisions of the scheme—that is, the charging scheme—to the

1713
attention of those it affects. I am not terribly happy about that. I should like to see licence holders receive details of the charging scheme. I do not refer necessarily to the amounts because I understand that they are subject to variation year on year. But the licence holder should know the obligations to which he is subject in relation to charges and the penalties that would accrue were those charges not met.
In relation to revocation of licences following non-payment of the subsistence charge, the Minister states in his letter of 1st March 1995:
"in accordance with the appropriate procedure. That procedure must be specified in regulations".
He goes on to suggest that the Government would wish to consult on the regulations. I do not believe it is necessary to put into the Bill that the licence holder or potential licence holder should have a preview of the arrangements, but it is necessary to ensure that he has the ability to preview.
In an earlier letter of, I believe, 23rd February, the Minister offered to consider whether there was any guidance which the Department of the Environment could give the agency on the matter. The purpose in putting down the amendment, and speaking even at this late hour to the last amendment of the day, is to inquire whether the Minister has given further and direct consideration to the matter and will bring forward a government amendment to meet my anxiety. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Clause 40(6) requires the agency to take such steps as it considers appropriate for bringing the provisions of any charging scheme to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them. This will require the agency to notify licence holders of all charges that are payable. Indeed, the charge for licence applications, transfers and surrenders must accompany the licence application. We envisage that it would be good practice for the agency, at the same time as informing licence holders of the level of charge, also to inform them of the penalties for non-payment. We do not consider, given all the safeguards that are already contained in the legislation, that it is necessary to include further statutory provisions to this effect. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it does not quite satisfy me. Has my noble friend given further consideration to the point raised in his letter when he said that he would consider whether guidance should be given to the agency? I should be grateful if he could answer that, then I should know how far to take it.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if I said in my letter that I would consider it, I shall do so.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful for that, but I had hoped that between the end of the previous stage and now we would have progressed further along those lines. I shall have to press my noble friend in other quarters on the subject, perhaps on another day. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Borrowing powers]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 117:
Page 38, line 9, leave out ("the") and insert ("each new").
Page 38, line 10, leave out ("Secretary of State or the") and insert ("appropriate").
Page 38, line 13, after ("the") insert ("appropriate").
Page 38, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Subject to subsection (6) below, each new Agency may borrow from the appropriate Minister, by way of temporary loan or otherwise, such sums in sterling as it may require for meeting its obligations and carrying out its functions.").
Page 38, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
Page 38, line 24, leave out ("or (4) (a)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 104. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Government loans to the Agency]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 118 to 123:
Page 38, line 36, leave out ("Each of the Ministers") and insert ("The appropriate Minister").
Page 38, line 37, leave out ("the") and insert ("a new").
Page 38, line 39, after ("the") insert ("appropriate").
Page 39, line 1, leave out ("either of the") and insert ("any of the appropriate").
Page 39, line 1, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a new").
Page 39, line 11, at end insert:
("(5) The Treasury may issue to any of the appropriate Ministers—

(a) out of the National Loans Fund, or

(b) out of money provided by Parliament,

such sums as are necessary to enable him to make loans to a new Agency under this section; and any sums received by a Minister of the Crown in pursuance of subsection (2) above shall be paid into the National Loans Fund or, as the case may be, the Consolidated Fund.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these amendments were also spoken to with Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 53 [Interpretations of Part I]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 43, line 7, at end insert:
(""costs" includes—

(a) costs to any person; and

(b) costs to the environment;").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment was also spoken to with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at midnight.