HL Deb 20 November 1997 vol 583 cc681-93

5.15 p.m.

Lord Dubs

rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 28th October be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to discuss both the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. I hope that I am in order in linking the two. It will save time if we deal with the orders together.

The main purpose of the draft Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and the draft Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 is to introduce in Northern Ireland provisions on industrial pollution control and waste management in line with those already in force in Great Britain under the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, Parts I and II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Environment Act 1995. The orders will also bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with European requirements.

I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I say a few words about the detailed provisions of each order. The draft Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order creates a three tier system for the control of pollution from industrial processes to be administered by two enforcing authorities. It is fair to say that the tiers reflect the degree of potential pollution that might result from particular processes. The first tier deals with major industrial processes with the potential for serious pollution. They will be subject to a system of integrated pollution control. There will be about 20 such processes in Northern Ireland including power generation, chemical manufacture and cement manufacture. This means that harmful emissions to air, land and water will be regulated by a chief inspector appointed by the Department of the Environment.

As regards the second tier, the chief inspector will also administer a system of air pollution control in respect of processes with a significant capacity to cause air pollution. Such processes will include mineral, glass, galvanising and roadstone coating processes. Many of these processes have a long history of air pollution regulation under the Alkali Act dating from the 19th century.

However, as regards the third tier, the order also gives a new responsibility to district councils for dealing with a range of processes which have less potential to cause significant air pollution but which are more likely to impact directly on the local environment. Such processes will include cement blockyards, timber processes and paint spraying. This represents an important extension of the environmental responsibilities of councils and underlines further the vital role which they have to play in local environmental issues.

In addition to conferring stronger powers on enforcing authorities to control pollution from industrial processes, the order also contains provisions to enable polluters who fail to comply with its requirements to be prosecuted. It creates a number of offences and penalties including a fine of up to £20,000, or up to three months' imprisonment, for the most serious infringements. There are also rights of appeal against the decisions of enforcing authorities.

Information about the effect of new developments on the environment will be made more accessible by the introduction of a requirement to advertise applications for authorisations in the press. Enforcing authorities will also be required to maintain registers of information about such applications. These registers will be open to public scrutiny.

A key element of the new controls is the requirement for industrial concerns to employ the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs, or BATNEEC, in order to minimise pollution and comply with the tighter controls on emissions.

Process operators will be required to pay fees and charges to cover the cost of assessing applications for authorisations. However, effective regulation means much more than just setting conditions in an authorisation. Regular inspection of processes will be required to assess operators' performance against authorisation conditions. In certain cases, enforcement action may also be necessary. A separate annual fee will be charged for these activities.

These charging schemes will also reflect the well-established principle that the polluter should pay for the damage which his activities may cause to the environment.

Noble Lords will be interested to know that during the consultation period comments were received from 54 individuals and organisations. The proposals were generally welcomed although I have made three specific amendments to take account of points raised by consultees. These cover procedures for dealing with appeals, the admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings and clarification of the powers of district councils to bring proceedings under the order.

I now turn to the draft waste and contaminated land order. As I have already said, the purpose of this order is to introduce provisions on waste management and contaminated land broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain and to meet European requirements. The order is also a response to increasing demands from public and political pressure groups for tougher action on the waste problem.

The order will be a key element in the Government's overall policies for the protection of the environment in Northern Ireland. It will impose a new duty of care on all persons concerned with the keeping, control or transfer of controlled waste.

New powers will be introduced requiring any person who transports controlled waste in the course of business, or otherwise for profit, to register with the Department of the Environment. It will be illegal for any person not registered to carry or transport such waste.

The present licensing system will be strengthened by introducing the concept of "fit and proper person". Entitlement to a waste management licence will depend on the ability of the applicant to demonstrate a degree of technical competence commensurate with the nature of operations undertaken and adequate financial provision to discharge the obligations arising from the licence.

Provision is also made for the separation of regulatory and operational responsibilities for waste, currently carried out by district councils, by the transfer of the regulatory controls to the department. These controls will be exercised by the department's Environment and Heritage Service, which was established as a Next Steps agency on 1st April 1996.

The order also emphasises the increasing importance of finding alternatives to waste disposal. The department will be required, as soon as possible, to prepare a waste strategy which will be a key measure for change in how we in Northern Ireland deal with waste in the future. In particular, it will set objectives to reduce the amount of waste generated and provide a framework to enable a significant new emphasis on materials recovery. The strategy will also build public confidence by providing members of the public with the opportunity actively to participate in sustainable waste management practices.

We hope to publish the draft form of the waste strategy next year. It will establish waste policy on a hierarchy: first, to reduce the overall amount of waste; secondly, to recover as much as possible; thirdly, to recycle waste; and, at the bottom of the hierarchy, to use landfill as a measure for disposing of waste.

District councils will also be required to draw up waste management plans for their areas. In addition to showing arrangements for the safe disposal of waste, the plans will also describe arrangements for local recycling and materials recovery schemes. There will also be scope for councils to undertake recycling initiatives and to make payments for recycling initiatives undertaken by others.

There will also be important new powers for the department and district councils to deal with contaminated land. In line with the well-established "polluter pays" principle, responsibility for remediation costs will, in the first instance, fall to the person or persons who caused the initial contamination.

Noble Lords will be interested to know that during the consultation period responses were received from 47 individuals and organisations, including 17 district councils. The proposals were broadly welcomed, although consultees did draw attention to a number of issues. In response to those, I have made seven amendments to the draft order. In the main, they deal with operational points raised by district councils.

Of particular concern to councils was the imposition on them of a mandatory duty to deal with the problem of fly-tipping. Following consideration of the arguments put forward, I have agreed that the power should remain discretionary and have amended the draft order accordingly.

However, while I understand the difficulties which councils would have experienced in the exercise of a mandatory power, the problem of fly-tipping remains one which must be dealt with if we are really serious about protecting our local environment. I have therefore asked my officials to prepare, in consultation with district councils, a code of practice which will ensure that the problem is dealt with in an effective and uniform way across all council areas.

One of Northern Ireland's great strengths is the quality of the environment which it can offer to those who live there or come as visitors. These draft orders will provide improved systems of industrial pollution and waste management control which will help to ensure that the environment continues to be protected not only for ourselves but also for future generations. I am also confident that they will do so in a way which maintains the right balance between the need to protect the environment and the need to ensure that industry can continue to operate in a competitive way. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 28th October be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)

5.30 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, clearly we are all in favour of environmental protection, which both orders deal with in their different ways. But, as the Minister said, we also want to see the Northern Ireland economy flourish. It is therefore important that the restrictions should not be so onerous as to deter or divert investment, and hence jobs.

In the case of Northern Ireland it is important that the controls are not out of line with those in force and being operated in the Republic of Ireland. It is, after all, the only land border in the United Kingdom and is therefore a very important point in this part of the kingdom.

The existence of agreed European Union directives provides some reassurance. However, we also know of the phenomenon known as "gold plating", the habit of over-egging the directives when turning them into United Kingdom legislation; and also of over-zealous application of the orders in this country by comparison with some overseas jurisdictions. Perhaps the Minister, in replying, will say a little about what the position is in the republic. In particular, will he assure the House that businesses in Northern Ireland will not find that as a result of the two orders, they acquire a regime which is more bureaucratic, expensive or onerous than that which applies in the republic?

The industrial pollution control order splits responsibility, as the Minister said, between the department and the 26 local authorities under the three-tier system. He gave some examples of the sort of processes that would fall on one side and the other of the various border lines. It is most important that the distinction between the different jurisdictions is clear, and that the border lines are as clear as possible. They are not comprised in the order in itself; they have to be settled separately and laid down. If not, there will be scope for all sorts of difficulties between the local authorities and the central authorities in Northern Ireland in enforcing the controls. Even from the brief list read out by the Minister it seems that there will be difficulty in making a precise definition of the edges, as to who is responsible.

As the local authorities are to do part of the job, it is also important that they do their best to act in a similar way to one another. If we have 26 totally different regimes in effect operating across the Province, then it will be extremely difficult for large companies which have to deal with a number of local authorities, each with their own interpretation and their own approach to a similar process. It will also be difficult for those who advise small businesses if the local authorities make different decisions in similar circumstances in different parts of Ulster.

My next point concerns the timing of the implementation of both orders, and in particular the one on industrial pollution. Industry needs time to adjust to new controls. Some of those will require expensive adjustments. It is much easier, as well as being much better, to build environmental protection into the construction of a plant rather than to try and "bolt it on" afterwards, and try to deal with the environmental protection at a late stage in the life of a particular process. A lot of process plant has a life of 10 years at least, and inevitably there will be a certain amount of bolting on. But the longer the timeframe, particularly for big and complicated processes, the better will be the environmental protection, even if it is a bit later, and the easier it will be for industry.

It is also important in some cases for industry to be able to get prompt decisions out of the machinery. Sometimes investment is necessary to fulfil a particular order which may be on offer. A tender has to be put in to try to obtain a job. If it will take a long time to discover from the authorities what environmental protection will be required to make the necessary investment to fulfil the order it will be difficult for industry to send in a tender promptly enough to secure the order. The provisions in the order are that there is six months before there need be a definitive reply to a request for permission.

I am also concerned about the level of fees in the waste and contaminated land order. Provision for fees is on page 31 but it does not indicate the kind of basis on which the fees and charges for licences will be made. Is it the intention that the fees should recover the costs of administering the controls that are provided for in the order, or is it intended to be a tax which will raise money from those who generate waste or are otherwise affected by the order?

Part of the reason for raising that point is that I notice that the provisions are different in the two orders in relation to fees. In the industrial pollution control order fees are referred to in Article 8, on page 15. Sub-paragraph (6) requires the department, in framing a scheme for the fees, to ensure that, the fees … are sufficient, taking one financial year with another, to cover the expenditure incurred by … the enforcing authorities". A limit is provided to the fees that will be charged. But there is no equivalent provision in the waste and contaminated land order which can give rise to the suspicion that it might be a tax as well as merely the polluter paying. That is the phrase used by the Minister and it is a principle that we all support.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is present, so I am encouraged to raise some drafting points which occur on the orders. They are not the responsibility of the Minister but of the draftsmen who prepared the orders. It seems to me that they are some of the worst examples of the draftsman's art that have come before Parliament that I have had to deal with. We must remember, in reading such orders, that the restrictions must he used by businessmen, including small businessmen. Ideally they ought to be able to go to the order, look up the point and understand what it says. I do not believe that you can do so from looking at the orders, for two reasons: first, the complicated language used and, secondly, because much of it is done by reference to other orders in the past and, for that matter, orders and regulations in the future which have not yet been made.

Discussing the two orders together was a sensible move by the Minister. It gives us the opportunity to compare the different drafting styles that seem to have been used in the two orders. Page 4 of the industrial pollution order defines mobile plant as: plant which is designed to move or to be moved whether on roads or otherwise". I am not sure why we need "on roads or otherwise". However, the waste order draftsman clearly thinks that that is a risky formulation which may not cover the situation. So he adds another sub-paragraph into the waste order. Page 10 states: Regulations may prescribe descriptions of plant which are to be treated as being or as not being mobile plant". I do not believe that we need another set of regulations to introduce a different definition of mobile plant for the waste order. That is what makes it impossible for a businessman to look up the law, unless he has an encyclopaedic law library to begin with and plenty of time.

I could give many other examples. I should draw your Lordships' attention to the convoluted definitions of waste which occur in the waste and contaminated land order, but first I refer to the industrial pollution control order which on page 40 states: No condition shall … regulate the final disposal … on land of controlled waste (within the meaning of Part II of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978)". I have not been able to find out whether that is one of the parts of the 1978 order that is being replaced by the other order. If so, it adds to the complications.

In the waste order, the first definition of waste refers us straight to Schedule 1 where a whole page sets out the different types of waste that are to be regarded as waste to be covered in the order. That is only the start of it. All the definitions or additional definitions are included in Article 2 of the order. For example, having already said that waste is the residues of various processes, it goes on to say that: 'controlled waste' … means household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste". Household waste is then defined in a whole section with five different sub-headings and industrial waste is similarly defined. The order then states: 'commercial waste' means, subject to paragraph (3), waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade … excluding … household waste; … industrial waste; … waste from any mine or quarry … agriculture … [or] waste of any other description prescribed for the purposes of this sub-paragraph". Sub-paragraph (3) to which that refers states that: Regulations may provide that waste of a prescribed description shall be treated for the purposes of prescribed provisions of this Order as being or not being household waste or industrial waste or commercial waste", and so on. The provisions go on and on, backwards and forwards from sub-paragraph to sub-paragraph. It is extremely difficult in some cases to work out what is meant by "waste". That is why I do not believe that this is one of the finest examples of the parliamentary draftsman's art that I have seen.

That leads me to the general question of whether the new Government have any plans to improve the quality of parliamentary draftsmanship, particularly to absorb some rules such as those suggested to us a long time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. They related to improving the quality of drafting and making all such documents easier to read, particularly for the businessmen to whom it has to apply.

Despite all those criticisms, I think we should burden the statute book with the two orders. It is in the interests of the environment of Northern Ireland.

Lord Alderdice

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explication of these two somewhat technical orders, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, described them. I remark that the Minister, long before he came to his present office, had a great interest in matters of the environment. Since he has taken departmental responsibility in Northern Ireland he has exercised his interest in a way that has shown his commitment to and interest in these matters. We therefore welcome the orders. It is good to see environmental concerns being the basis for legislation. I do not believe I see much that would be unnecessarily hampering to industry, properly carried through.

There are two matters to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. First, I am glad to see the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order coming forward. I hope that it will help us in dealing with a number of matters not just of large industrial concerns but smaller matters, particularly the local businessman who is doing a bit of paint spraying in the street and thoroughly polluting the atmosphere of his neighbours. Those are the sort of simple and small matters which are nevertheless extraordinarily difficult to deal with.

I hope that the regulations will be so laid out that such minor but profoundly irritating matters will not only be dealt with, but will also be policed properly. Often such activities take place outside the normal nine to five working hours of those officers who set out to patrol and police them. That is a cause of considerable frustration for those who suffer from them and for those local elected representatives who try to take the matters up. Therefore I hope that when it comes to regulations, regard will be had to those practical matters of implementation.

I hesitate, in following the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to raise the question of definition of language. But there is one matter of definition to which I can perhaps draw the Minister's attention. It is contained in Article 29 of the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order, where reference is made to a "trade secret". It is clear that when it comes to matters of national security the Secretary of State should decide what is a matter of national security. But it is not clear to me who decides what is or is not a "trade secret". I am sure that there are some in Northern Ireland who would make the terminology "trade secret" apply to all sorts of matters which the normal, reasonable individual would not think appropriate. Perhaps we can have guidance on who will make such a decision.

I welcome the encouragement in the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order in regard to recycling and a number of other matters to which reference was made. Perhaps I can take up the question of fees and licences raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am not clear whether the fees will be simply to cover administration or whether they will refer to the principle, now widely and properly accepted, that the polluter should pay—not a tax, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, but something that nevertheless covers the cost of making good any damage that is done by the waste matters to which the order refers.

Apart from those minor requests for information, clarification and definition, we warmly welcome the two orders and the considerable protection that they will afford the environment and the people of Northern Ireland.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, in regard to the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order, I am sure that the Government were correct in rejecting suggestions for an independent environmental agency for Northern Ireland. I appreciate the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that co-operation is needed so that a large company straddling council boundaries is not put in the position of having to deal with three of four separate authorities at the same time. Even if such a body was given co-ordinating powers, it would simply create yet another layer of authority and would not be right. We must bear in mind what has been said in regard to the difficulties which may arise when various people, given authority for the first time, in their zeal create problems for an undertaking or a new company investing in Northern Ireland when there is urgency about their becoming established without too much red tape.

I suppose it makes sense to allocate to councils some influence in regard to dealing with fly tipping. It would be manifestly unfair to burden councils with full responsibility, given that the practice of fly tipping has vastly increased since the Treasury imposition of the landfill tax. In common justice, the main costs of enforcement should be borne by the department, which is much more likely to be reimbursed by the Treasury than is a humble district council. The Treasury, whose landfill tax caused the vast increase in fly tipping, should bear responsibility.

In response to consultations the department agreed to. reimburse some of the costs of the order and sums of money in that regard have already been set aside, as indicated in the order and explanatory papers. I hope that those moneys, earmarked and set aside by courtesy of the Treasury, will not be eliminated by any subsequent Budget.

Not unexpectedly, costs and charging are the main issues in the Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order. Concern in that regard has also been shown by noble Lords who have contributed thus far. I accept that the principle of "polluter pays" is reasonable. But while the polluter may pay, will such reimbursement be complete and total, particularly in relation to the district councils? The council will have incurred costs, particularly in the southern grouping of councils where problems may arise due to the land frontier being involved. Also, will there be prompt reimbursement? Delays are not uncommon, particularly in regard to legal costs and charges.

Perhaps I may express support for the guidance given for the avoidance of double charges, double penalty or double taxation in the case of two processes being carried out on the same site or in the same location. I also welcome the assurance that the department will issue comprehensive guidance which will be updated frequently. That is extremely important in view of the rapid changes in technology which have the effect of making regulations obsolete. Perhaps that request could be embodied within the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for an English translation of the regulations.

I warmly welcome the Government's sympathetic response to requests that various appeals should lie to an independent body rather than to the department. I am sure it is right that the department accepts the principle that the appeal system should be seen to be absolutely independent. I am reassured by the fact that such acceptance of principle has been embodied in the order.

Finally, your Lordships may have noticed that the orders confer additional powers on the 26 councils in Northern Ireland. They, along with the Parliament of the United Kingdom, are the governing mechanisms and bodies of the United Kingdom. It is no coincidence that the same applies to England, Scotland and Wales. We are therefore on all fours in that regard. Therefore, if the present Stormont high wire act fails, we would simply have to use constructively and perhaps to an even greater extent those two institutions which are tried and tested.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to the debate. In general I thank them for their supportive comments. I appreciate that these orders concern technical matters. I feel as though I have been subjected to a Select Committee type inquisition rather than a debate. However, without taking up too much of the House's time, I shall do my best to answer specific points.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, concluded with a criticism of the drafting of the orders. In making those criticisms he echoed comments that I made in the other place in relation to the drafting standards of his own government. We have had 18 years of this sort of drafting and if parliamentary draftsmen are indulging in bad habits it is because his government allowed them to adopt those bad habits and did not challenge them. Therefore I say that if he had put the matter in order, we would now be doing quite well.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I entirely agree with him. The reason I specifically exonerated the Minister from responsibility for the drafting was because I struggled, as a Minister, on a number of occasions with drafting that I considered unsatisfactory, and almost invariably lost. The defence mechanisms of the draftsmen for their specific formulations are extremely well worked out and difficult to challenge. I therefore appreciate the difficulty from the Minister's point of view. Nevertheless I believe now, as I believed in government, that the rules set out in an excellent report many years ago by my noble friend Lord Renton are valuable and would be best put into practice.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord says. I know he exempted me from the criticism when he started making his comments. I am sensitive to the need for government to produce things in comprehensible English. I find there is a difficulty when legislation refers to previous legislation, which is a feature of so many Acts of Parliament and Northern Ireland orders. It is quite difficult to unscramble that problem and find a way of not having to make cross-references. However, as a general proposition, I very much agree with what the noble Lord said. I shall do my best. But he has asked me to commit the Government to improving the drafting of English. I am sure that the Government want to do that, but it is a difficult task.

I turn to the specific points raised in relation to the orders. The noble Lord said that there should be a level playing field between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The republic has an Environmental Protection Act which mirrors the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in Britain. That Act represents the principal body of controls on which these orders are based. We will not be prejudicing the performance of Northern Ireland industry. Indeed, I would hope that, by improving the environment, we may well be helping Northern Ireland industry. But I certainly would not want Northern Ireland industry to be unfairly impeded in its task of being as competitive as possible.

I was asked about the timing of implementation. Once the draft order comes into operation, new industrial processes will automatically be subject to its provisions. However, in the case of existing processes, it is proposed to have a five-year phasing-in period, during which time different sectors of industry will be called in for authorisation in accordance with regulations which will be made under the draft order. We want to be sensitive to the difficulties that industries may face and give them a decently long phasing-in period. But we are drawing a distinction between existing processes and new processes which will be set up in the future and which will have to be subject to the new provisions.

I was asked whether the draft order will be applied by all district councils responsible for its application; in other words, whether we will take action to ensure evenness of application. We place considerable emphasis on the role which will be played by district councils in controlling air pollution in their areas. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and other noble Lords made this point. My department will have general oversight of district council functions and will seek to ensure that they enforce the provisions of the draft order on a consistent basis to avoid variations in standards between one district council and another. It would clearly be unfair to enterprises and businesses that operated in more than one district council area to have to conform to different standards. We shall seek to achieve as much as possible uniform standards from one district council to another in order to make that fair to businesses.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked how one would define which process falls into which category. The draft order seeks to introduce new controls in a way which will take account of local circumstances and impose the minimum additional burden on industry. For this reason the chief inspector will assume responsibility for processes subject to the new integrated pollution control arrangements and also for processes which are currently subject to air pollution control by him. District councils will assume responsibility for other processes subject to air pollution controls. The prescribed processes and substance regulations to be made under the draft order will clearly designate processes to each of the categories. We shall make that clear in the regulations in such a way that I hope there will be no misunderstanding or confusion about how we wish the arrangements to work.

I was also asked whether instances of pollution control will be dealt with quickly. The system of control proposed would require prior authorisation of processes. This will allow environmental protection measures to be considered at an early stage and to be, as it were, designed into the process. Any business setting up would be able to plan its process in the light of the legislative requirements. I hope that will be helpful to businesses.

The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Alderdice, asked about fees and charging methods. In line with the well-established "polluter pays" principle, to which reference has already been made, fees and charges will be set at a level which will enable enforcing authorities to recover the full costs in administering the new controls. The detail of the charging schemes will be the subject of wide-ranging consultation with interested parties so that there will be proper understanding of how these fees will work.

I was asked about the definition of "waste". That replicates the legislation in Britain and is designed to ensure that in all respects it meets European requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made some play of the different types of definition under the heading "Is this good and clear English?" I repeat that I sympathise with the points he made. But we believe that the definition must provide a degree of flexibility in order to anticipate future developments and movement in what constitutes waste. Perhaps we had to be less precise than he would have wished; perhaps we had to have complicated definitions; because we wanted to allow for future industrial processes as well as existing ones.

I was asked about overzealous application of the controls. Operators can appeal against any condition of an authorisation if it is believed that the enforcing authority has placed an unreasonable requirement on the operator.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, asked about disclosure of information that would be seen to be commercially confidential. The question of whether information for disclosure under Article 29 relates to a trade secret or is commercially confidential will have to be determined by the enforcing authorities. The department will publish guidance to assist enforcing authorities in making such determinations and enforcing authorities will be encouraged to give careful consideration before disclosing information under this article.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also asked about regulations dealing with small operators or operations. The regulations are comprehensive in specifying the processes to be covered by the order. Enforcing authorities will be proactive in enforcement of the legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about waste management licences. The draft order is based on the polluter pays principle. Therefore, the charges imposed for waste management licences will reflect all the necessary costs associated with the department's enforcement activities, including auditing operations and enforcement of licensing conditions. I take the point made by the noble Lord about the need to reflect the true costs of different waste management options, but I feel that the answer lies in the development of more sustainable waste management practices. The landfill tax has been very effective in doing just that, by reflecting the true cost of disposal to landfill, thereby persuading consumers and industry actively to minimise waste production and promote more sustainable practices. Consumers and industry are still taking time to develop strategies to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. So I would expect the landfill tax to go on having an impact on the people who produce material for landfill.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about fly tipping. District councils are best placed to identify and deal with fly tipping in their areas. It is right that the costs involved in such activities should be borne by ratepayers. I appreciate that the noble Lord will say, "People who fly tip may move from one district council area to another". There is a problem there, but I think that at a local level district councils are probably in the best position to deal with the problem. I concede that it is a problem. There are cowboys who fly-tip by night and cause many problems. I am sensitive to the difficulties, but I believe that district councils are in a good position to deal with them.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also asked for fast-track applications for authorisations involving new investment. I think that I have already dealt with that. The draft order required applications for authorisation to be determined within a maximum of six months of being submitted to an enforcing authority. However, in the case of applications involving new investment, enforcing authorities will be encouraged to accord them a higher priority than other applications and to determine them in a shorter time.

We do not want to place bureaucratic controls on businesses. We want businesses to be able to operate well. We want to ensure that the system and the department are sensitive to the need for quick decisions; otherwise businesses will be delayed and that would not be right.

I was also asked about charging schemes. The cost to district councils of administering the new controls will be met by the charging schemes provided by the draft order. The charging schemes will be designed to facilitate full cost recovery. It is expected that charges will be set at a level that will enable district councils to recover the costs involved in authorisation, inspection and enforcement activities.

The orders are technical and I apologise to the House for the technical nature of my answers. I believe that these two orders will further protect the environment of Northern Ireland. I believe that the methods by which we are seeking to achieve that are sensitive to the needs of business and will not be excessively bureaucratic. I hope that in future we can achieve that by better language than has been used in the past.

On Question, Motion agreed to.