§ (" . Regulations under this Act may provide for emission controls on offshore power generation plant with a total thermally rated input above 50MWs.")
§ The noble Lord said: By way of introduction to the amendment, I must say that I was surprised to see that this proposed new clause is still starred on the Marshalled List despite the fact that it was tabled last Wednesday. Therefore, it was bound to be starred when the first Marshalled List was issued the next day. However, for the life of me I cannot see why it should still be starred three days later in the current Marshalled List which is available in the Printed Paper Office. There is always the suggestion that a starred amendment is, somehow, late and therefore a less-deserving afterthought. This was not; indeed, it was tabled in the middle of last week. Although I appreciate that this is not a matter primarily for Ministers but rather for the House authorities, I hope that in taking up the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that can be looked at because I find it slightly infra dig that one of my amendments is starred, which suggests that I did not table it soon enough.
I do not think this debate will take an hour. It was recognised by the offshore oil and gas industry that the wording of the new clause which we have just debated—and which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has withdrawn—may not have been sufficient to take into account certain aspects in relation to that industry. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has indicated that that is one of the purposes of the whole Bill.
The point that is sought to be made here is that under the European large combustion plants directive which applied to power generation plant with a total thermally rated input above 50 megawatts, that plant was expressly excluded from the large combustion plants directive. The offshore installations were expressly excluded.
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out, that is not the case under this directive. Indeed, it is one of the first items in the appropriate schedule to the directive. I think all I need say at this stage is that when we look again at the question of a purpose clause—because that is what this amendment is intended to reflect—we need to take account of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made about the offshore oil and gas industry. This is almost certainly not the right form of words, but there needs to be something to indicate that here we have a significant extension of the existing controls, which hitherto have not applied to that industry.
Perhaps I may use this as a peg on which to hang a question to which I have not yet received an effective answer. If other countries in the European Union do not propose to apply this directive to offshore installations, what are the Government going to do about it? The whole purpose of having a European directive is that it shall apply throughout the European Union. I have been told—no one has suggested this is wrong—that, for instance, when the Danish Government perform the 957 same process as we are going through now and embody the directive in domestic legislation, they do not intend to extend it to the offshore oil and gas industry. That seems to me to make a nonsense of the whole thing. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is in a position to tell us anything more about that. I say to him with respect that merely to refer to taking infraction proceedings is not a satisfactory answer.
We are still producing legislation throughout the Union in order to implement the directive. That is the moment at which these things need to be made clear. We should not wait until it is all on the statute book and then say, "Hoi, you have not done what you should have done. We shall now haul you before the European Court". That is a longstop process, as it were; the position should be made clear now. I do not see why this Parliament in this country should enact this legislation, when we are told that others do not propose to enact it in the same form or with the same substance. That would simply hamstring our own industry and put it at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis those of other European Union countries.
I recognise that those questions perhaps go a little wider than the new clause which I propose. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be able to give us a more satisfactory answer than we received at the previous Committee stage. I beg to move.
§ Lord WhittyI believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated that it might not be appropriate to press this amendment at this stage in its present form because of other discussions that are taking place. I refer not just to the discussions which are taking place in relation to this Committee; the regulations for implementing the directive are subject to a consultation process, of which the noble Lord is well aware, which will close on 26th May. That process is carried out by my colleagues in the DTI and a task force involving the industry which is chaired by my colleague John Battle. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Macdonald, who was present a moment ago, is the deputy chair of that body. There is quite a long way to go before the threshold issue as regards regulations is resolved in those discussions. The noble Lord is aware that the threshold to which he refers is contained in the draft regulations.
As regards the application of the measure in other European countries, our understanding is that in the case of large combustion installations—one must recognise that it is the process that is relevant here, not the location—the measure applies to installations outside territorial waters. It is also our understanding that other EU countries have understood—in some cases belatedly—that that process applies to their equivalent installations as well as to ours, and that they would therefore be subject to possible infraction proceedings if they did not introduce legislation to cover those installations. I believe that the other parliaments to which the noble Lord referred are at an even earlier stage of introducing this legislation than we are. However, all of us here are attempting to pass the legislation to comply with the directive by 30th October. 958 I believe that by that stage the other member states—Norway through its membership of EFTA is bound by the same provisions—will have met those requirements in their legislation. I hope that in the light of those comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, at least at this stage.
§ Lord Jenkin of RodingI am extremely grateful to the Minister for that clarification which takes us rather further forward than was the case in February. I shall obviously want to take advice on this matter, but at this moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Clause 1 [Regulation of polluting activities]:
§ Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5:
§ Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("make") to ("provision") in line 11
§
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("(2A) The powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) shall be exercisable—
§ Page 1, line 13, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2A)")
§ The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 en bloc.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 6:
§ Page 1, line 19. after ("land") insert ("which may give rise to any harm")
§ The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7 which also stands in my name. When we debated this Bill in February, noble Lords considered that the definition of "environmental pollution" in that draft was inadequate and as such added inappropriately to the width of the regulation-making powers. I promised to reflect on that debate. These amendments address that issue. With my amendment, Clause 1(3) of the Bill will include a definition of pollution which goes no wider than the definition in the directive and in Section 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This is as far as the concept can be defined while still allowing for the effective operation of the regulatory regime. To go narrower than the directive definition would mean that we could not properly implement the directive, leaving the UK open to possible infraction proceedings. To go narrower than the 1990 Act definition would mean a weakening of our existing controls, which is not intended.
Amendment No. 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would remove from the definition the concept of harm to human health or to the health of other living organisms. I do not think that that is appropriate. This is part of the definition of "pollution". It forms part of the definition in the directive and it appears in current UK legislation. In some ways it is perhaps the most 959 important consideration which the regulator takes into account when setting conditions on the operator of an installation. Without it, the regulator would be left to control those emissions which damaged buildings or offended the senses but not those which caused illness or disease. I referred earlier to the letter received from the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, who was also alarmed by the implications of this amendment and who said that it would be contrary to long-standing elements of UK environmental policy.
The health implications of pollution are fundamental to the regime we are trying to put into place by the legislation. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not proceed with his amendment. I believe that my amendments meet the concerns expressed in the earlier February debate. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of Mar and KellieI like the definition in Amendment No. 7. However, there are one or two questions I should like to ask about it. While I have been campaigning for the Scottish Parliament—perhaps in the future we will refer to that as "yet another place"—it has been drawn to my attention that in Clackmannanshire, Kinross and West Fife there is a problem with public health because of the spreading of partially treated sewage sludge, which has concerned many people in that area. Will the Bill regulate the spreading and/or ejection of partially treated sewage sludge on agricultural land? The main concern is public health, particularly when the spreading occurs on more than one occasion per year. The risks of air pollution affecting health and of leachates reaching the water supply are substantial and need to be controlled. Will Amendment No. 7 deal with the issue of the use of agricultural land for the disposal of partially treated sewage sludge?
§ Lord Dixon-SmithI am sorry if I appear to be a little confused. I am not sure whether we are talking to the Minister's Amendment No. 7 or to my Amendment No. 8, which I have not yet moved and to which the Minister has apparently already replied. However, in this relaxed and progressive mood, perhaps I should say why I tabled the amendment. It was for partly philosophical and partly practical reasons—and mainly because I wanted to hear what the Minister had to say on the matter.
My philosophical reason relates to the question of harm to "other living organisms". Harm to other living organisms can mean many things. It implies that in the state of nature other living organisms are not trying to harm themselves. I am afraid that that is patent nonsense. My experience of nature is very clear: it is feast or famine. In the state of nature, everything struggles for domination. The fact that domination may be self-defeating is neither here nor there. It is the state of affairs. Plants do it against plants; animals against animals; animals against plants, and so on. In the state of nature, "harm" is a natural condition. That is the philosophical objection.
My practical objection is slightly different. We are talking about the possibility of making regulations about industrial processes. My practical concern is that this could conceivably be used against specific agricultural operations in general practice which always involve harm to something, be they only weeds, insects or 960 whatever. It could conceivably be used in such a way as to make the United Kingdom's agriculture uncompetitive in Europe arid elsewhere. I may be reassured that that would never happen in the light of the Minister's reply—I do not know—but I hope that he will accept that the point I am raising is a serious one. I hope that he might expand slightly on what he said. I accept that these words have been used in the past, but that does not necessarily mean that they are either wholly appropriate or wholly correct.
§ The Duke of MontroseIn a similar vein to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I am concerned about the proposed paragraph (c) in Amendment No. 7 regarding "offence to the senses". The Minister may be able to tell me where the phrase has been used before, but an "offence to the senses" might include an offence to sight, sound, smell or touch. One can think of various things which would offend people. It seems to me that one could draw up a law to deal with matters which damage such organs in human beings, but such matters are already covered in legislation. I have read the European directive but I can find nothing relating to this context. It seems to me that the amendment exceeds the purposes of the European directive. I am worried, as is the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this might put our production processes, both industrial and farming, at a disadvantage.
§ Baroness HamweeSurely other members of the European Union will be in the same position as we are if this definition faithfully replicates the provisions of the directive. I had understood it to mean that, if the definition is included, the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations to deal with "harm" as defined. No doubt we will have to go through a process of working out whether that "harm" is one which requires regulation.
§ Lord Dixon-SmithDoes the noble Baroness accept that up until now this country has been somewhat resistant to the idea of harmonisation of matters European? We have not yet pulled it into this specific area, but I suspect that this nation of ours will be as resistant to harmonisation in this area as we would be in others where the matter has generally been raised.
§ Baroness HamweeI thought that the noble Lord was concerned that we might be ahead of the game on this issue rather than trying to pull the other member states onside.
§ Lord WhittyThe noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is correct in saying that much has been made of the Bill. it is essentially an enabling Bill. It does not prescribe what the interventions would be; it defines what falls under both activities and under "environmental pollution". I understand the concerns of agriculture and other industries, hence the implications in sub-paragraph (iii) and paragraph (c) of my Amendment No. 7. Both wordings were in the 1990 Act and, as far as I am aware, there have been no problems of interpretation in the regulations brought forward under that Act. No doubt the 961 interests of the agricultural industry and others will be taken into account in the drafting of the various regulations.
As to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the regulations will again enable the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to deal with the problem of sludge. They will not necessarily prescribe that he should so do. It may be that "yet another place" will address the matter in a Scottish context at some future date. There are already some water-related regulations which apply to that area. The amendment would allow further such regulations to be made. With that clarification, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will not move his amendment and that the Committee will accept my amendments.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 7:
§
Page 1, line 25, at end insert —
("() In the definition of "environmental pollution" in subsection (3), "harm" means—
- (c) offence to the senses of human beings;
- (d) damage to property; or
- (e) impairment of, or interference with, amenities or other legitimate uses of the environment (expressions used in this paragraph having the same meaning as in Council Directive 96/61/EC).")
§
Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8:
Leave out line 4
§ The noble Lord said: In the light of the Minister's remarks, which I shall study with great care, I shall not move the amendment.
§ [Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, not moved.]
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 9:
§
Page I. line 25, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall require individuals or bodies responsible for carrying out such activities as are referred to in the regulations to employ the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (in this clause referred to as "BATNEEC") to be used for minimising the pollution which may be caused to the environment as a whole by those activities:
Provided that—
§ The noble Lord said: We return to the subject of BATNEEC: best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. We debated this matter fully at the earlier Committee stage. Of all the original recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, the one that the committee acknowledged the Government had not met was its original proposal that BATNEEC should be written into the Bill. In response both to the third report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and to the Select Committee at a later stage, the Minister has argued that he is justified in not accepting this proposal, that the well understood, well tried and well applied British test of BATNEEC should be included in the new Bill and the regulations, because there may well be circumstances in which it would be necessary to legislate for what might be described as a more stringent requirement. I believe I am right in saying that the Select Committee recognised the weight of that argument, but also thought it right to clarify whether or not there would be any circumstances in which a less stringent test should be applied. Its indication was that there would not, and should not, be.
§ This new clause takes up both those points. It attempts to meet the Government's argument that there may well be circumstances where a more stringent test than BATNEEC should be applied. But it also raises the possibility that there may be circumstances where it would not be right to apply the full rigour of BATNEEC where a less rigorous regime would be appropriate. One can imagine circumstances where the balance of cost and advantage, between the cost to the operators and the advantage to the environment (I use the word in its widest sense) might well justify such a circumstance.
§ My amendment therefore recognises that BATNEEC should be the central test. I argue for that because the principle is well known and well understood. Also, the Minister has said, in various different formulations—that it is very similar to; or not dissimilar from; or that BATNEEC lies at the heart of the environmental legislation—that this is what firms, professionals and regulators in this country are all familiar with. If it is the same as the test in the directive, why should we not continue to use it?
§ The amendment recognises that there may be either a more stringent regime or a less stringent one. It therefore meets the Government's case on a more stringent regime but provides a new procedure. If, in their wisdom, the Government decide to make regulations which would impose a more severe duty on operators than BATNEEC, or if they were to decide, perhaps in the face of opposition from environmental groups, that there 963 should be a less stringent regime, they would have to accompany the regulations with a statement justifying their decision. Further, those regulations must be subject to the affirmative, not merely the negative, procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
§ I ask the Government to consider this amendment seriously. It is intended to meet the case pressed by industry, and by the Select Committee, to write BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—into the Bill. It meets the Government's case as regards giving them power to impose a more rigorous regime. It would also allow the Government in certain circumstances to introduce a less rigorous scheme, subject to the procedural proposals that I have just described. I beg to move.
§ Lord Dixon-SmithIn rising to support my noble friend, I congratulate him on his ingenuity in drafting an amendment which literally allows the Government to go both ways—to be more, or less, severe—and then requires them, whichever way they may choose, to provide a public explanation of the reasons for so doing.
The BATNEEC principle is well understood and is measurable. It has worked successfully for a very long time. The difficulty with moving to a more open and potentially more severe regime is the possibility that no limitations would thereby be created. Theoretically, an industry could quickly be closed down. My noble friend's amendment at the very least merits serious study.
§ Lord WhittyThis matter is slightly complex. There are two separate issues involved. The first is whether we should retain as part of our new regime the concept of BATNEEC, or whether we should adopt the BAT regime specified in the directive. The second concerns the freedom of manoeuvre of the Secretary of State in either direction.
On the first issue, I appreciate the point made by both noble Lords that BATNEEC is a concept with which industry in general is already familiar. It is not originally a British concept. It arose from an EC directive issued in 1984 and was reflected in the 1990 Act. The EU has moved on and has now replaced BATNEEC by specifying the concept of BAT, which we must now apply.
I see that BATNEEC appears to provide a more explicit reference. However, the two techniques are similar. To my knowledge, neither industry nor regulator has expressed any great concern about having to substitute one for another. BAT is clearly defined in the European legislation—far more clearly than BATNEEC was defined in the 1990 legislation. Paragraph 11 of Article 2 of the directive makes it absolutely clear that cost is a key consideration. It states that,
available techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages".We are therefore not losing the reference to costs which may be behind some of the concerns expressed.964 I should point out that the UK Government cannot now alter the concept of BAT as it is set firmly within the framework of European legislation. Only by changing the European legislation could it be altered. That would require us to go back to square one in Europe, let alone on this particular base of legislation. Although BATNEEC and BAT are similar, they are not identical. We are obliged to transpose the directive in terms of BAT. Since BATNEEC is not identical, and does not have a definition which would allow us to argue that it is identical, we do not have that option.
Perhaps more fundamentally, if we tried to legislate for BATNEEC here while the directive prescribed BAT, we would all have a headache, working with two different potential definitions and a constant argument about which one applied. That would cause the kind of legal muddle which I know the noble Lord desires to avoid.
On the second issue, under Section 7 of the existing Environmental Protection Act 1990, an authorisation has to include such conditions as the regulator considers appropriate to achieve a number of objectives, including BATNEEC, and such conditions as are specified in directions given by the Secretary of State. Thus, there is some flexibility in the existing system.
The circumstances in which more stringent conditions than those dictated by BATNEEC may be imposed are not specified in the 1990 Act. Likewise, the conditions in which more stringent criteria than BAT could be specified in the current proposals are not specified either in the directive or in our proposed Bill. Nevertheless, we have recognised that there could be directives or consequences arising from the discussions on the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, or others which were not covered by the technique of BAT. We would wish to impose more stringent regulations on them. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee recognised that. If we wished to make more stringent regulations they would need to be subject to affirmative procedure.
The flexibility to operate in the opposite direction, to dilute the effect of BAT or BATNEEC under the existing situation, arises in the sense that the Secretary of State and the regulator have both the ability to grant a transitional period, for example, and to take rote of the particular technical and locational characteristics of the installation concerned. If an operator feels that a rigid application of the technique to his case is wrong, there are grounds for appeal.
Therefore, under the current regime—and it will continue under this regime—we allow some degree of flexibility. I would not say it is less stringent; it would allow a case-by-case assessment of the situation. If that degree of discretion were to be prescribed in regulations, the flexibility would be removed. That would probably be a retrograde step in the way in which the regulator co-operates with industry in applying the regulations.
Therefore, on both grounds but particularly on the first ground, I do not think it would be sensible to specify BATNEEC in the way proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. We might be in some difficulty were we to 965 attempt to do so. I appreciate his desire to give the Government and the regulator some degree of flexibility, but we do not believe that laying down that it should be prescribed in regulations would be the appropriate way to achieve that. It might make matters more rigid than they would otherwise be.
§ Lord Jenkin of RodingBefore I respond, I wonder whether I have correctly understood what the Minister said about the circumstances that would arise if there were to be a more stringent test than BATNEEC. Did he say that the regulations that embodied the test would be subject to the affirmative procedure as the Bill now stands? Perhaps I misunderstood him.
§ Lord WhittyI am trying to remember which amendments we have already passed and which we have not. If all my amendments are accepted, then the first set of regulations under the Bill which would deal with such matters would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
§ Lord Jenkin of RodingWhat about the circumstances where a subsequent set of regulations was introduced which might, in particular defined circumstances, impose a stiffer test? We have not yet come to Amendment No. 12 in the noble Lord's name, but as he said, under that amendment there is the first regulation, and then, under subsection (5C)(d), regulations,
which create an offence or increase a penalty for an existing offence".As I understand it, the Minister says that such a regulation would not necessarily be subject to the affirmative procedure. We may need to come back to it.Generally, I accept much of what the Minister said about the possible conflict between the two concepts, similar though they may be. I wonder whether this is yet another example of what one has seen so often in the British Government's interpretation of European directives. It has been summed up in the phrase "gold-plating"; that is, always being determined to ensure that we are holier than anyone else. We do it more thoroughly. We will never be at risk of being taken to the European Court for having fallen down. That has been a long-standing culture of government departments in this country, sometimes to the disadvantage of the subject here, when other countries do not act in quite the same way.
However, I shall look carefully at what the Minister said. Having fulfilled the Select Committee's remit to come back and check, the Minister said he would want the flexibility downwards as well as upwards, using shorthand terms, so that, in the words of the Select Committee report, the Minister is not saying that in no circumstances would criteria less strict than BAT be used. The report then said that the House may wish to see formal confirmation of this from the Minister. The Minister has not given that formal confirmation. Instead, he wanted flexibility. I do not quarrel with that. I shall study what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
966§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 10:
§ Page 1, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 2.
§ The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 10 and the related Amendments Nos. 13, 16, 17 and 18 meet another of the key recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Amendment No. 10 specifies which powers the Secretary of State may sub-delegate and to whom.
§ The power to sub-delegate certain aspects of the regulations is an essential part of the regime. It will enable, for example, an operator's permit conditions to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the regulator—aspects of which have just been touched on—rather than across the board in the regulations. Amendment No. 10, together with Amendments Nos. 13 and 18, limit the scope of the Bill to those areas mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Bill where it is necessary to sub-delegate.
§ To be more specific, sub-delegation would apply to the granting of permits, the imposition of permit conditions and the reviewing, varying or revoking of permits. The amendments also provide that powers may only be sub-delegated to those persons whom the Secretary of State specifies as "regulators". That would mean public or local authorities; in other words, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and, in certain situations, the Planning Inspectorate and the local authorities. Amendment No. 12 would make it clear on the face of the Bill that the regulations can provide for regulators to appoint suitable persons to take samples for enforcement purposes and to exercise powers of entry. That is the same power as they have under current regimes. Amendment No. 13 would also enable the Secretary of State to delegate his appellate functions. That principally applies to the planning inspectorate, as is the situation in most cases at present.
§ The group of amendments go all the way—if not further—to meeting the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee's requirements under its original critique of our Bill as originally drafted. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 11:
§
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("(4A) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—
§ (4B) Consultation undertaken before the passing of this Act shall constitute as effective compliance with subsection (4A) as if undertaken after that passing.")
§ The noble Baroness said: This amendment would place on the face of the Bill a requirement for appropriate consultation before making any regulations. We tabled a 967 similar amendment at the previous Committee stage in response to one of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We withdrew that amendment, however, in order to reflect upon the points made during debate and as a consequence have now included in this amendment a requirement to consult representatives of small businesses.
Throughout the development of the new pollution control system we have been consulting extensively on its implementation. We published a set of draft regulations before Christmas and in June the department will issue the fourth and final in the series of consultation papers. The DTI recently published a paper on its proposals to use the Bill to improve the offshore environmental regime. The consultation process has enabled us to maintain a broad consensus in support of the proposals under this Bill. I am happy to confirm our commitment to appropriate written consultation by moving this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed.
§ Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 12:
§
Page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercised by statutory instrument.
(5A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, if made without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
(5B) No regulations to which this subsection applies shall be made (whether alone or with other regulations) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(5C)Subsection (5B) applies to—
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Schedule 1 [Particular purposes for which provision may be made under section 1]:
§ Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 13:
§
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("and, in particular, securing") and insert—
("() Authorising permits to be granted subject to conditions imposed by regulators.
() Securing")
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
968§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 14:
§ Page 5, line 6, leave out ("Restricting") and insert ("Regulating")
§ The noble Baroness said: It was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who moved an amendment similar to this at our earlier Committee stage. I understand that the CBI had drawn his attention to the wording in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 which stated that the regulators could restrict the making of changes in the operation of installations. By its very nature regulation implies a degree of restriction. However, we took the point that this was a particularly negative phrase. In reality it will be very rare for a regulator to have to restrict changes by an operator. It might arise only where the operator refused outright to apply best available techniques in mitigating pollution as a result of the change. We therefore propose to replace "restricting" with "regulating". The CBI in its letter of 22nd March commented that this amendment improved on the previous one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I believe that he proposed the word "controlling". I beg to move.
§ Lord Jenkin of RodingI believe that the Government have (if I may use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty) more than met the point that I made at the earlier Committee stage. I agree with the CBI that "regulating" is better than "controlling", and I am grateful to the Government.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 15:
§ Page 5, line 39, leave out ("(subject to any") and insert ("(but excepting information which under the regulations is, or is determined to be, commercially confidential and subject to any other")
§ The noble Baroness said: One of the concerns expressed during the debate in February was the Lick of provision on the face of the Bill for the protection of commercially sensitive information from disclosure in public registers. This amendment now provides that safeguard. In ensuring that the public has access to information which affects the wellbeing of all the presumption must be that details about emissions are included as fully as possible in public registers. On rare occasions, however, it might be necessary to exclude information which the operator deemed, and the regulator agreed, was commercially confidential. The operator would have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in cases where the regulator took a contrary view.
The provisions in our draft regulations and those published for consultation recently by the DTI for offshore installations are, to all intents and purposes, the same as those which currently apply under Section 22 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That provision has operated successfully in relation to the current systems and our regulations (with the safeguard provided by this amendment) will ensure that it continues to do so. I beg to move.
Lord RentonI do not oppose this amendment, but I believe that in this context the word "commercially" 969 requires some explanation. There may be a precedent for it; if so, I am not familiar with it. What does "commercially confidential" mean in these particular circumstances? The word "commercially" has a very broad meaning. Presumably, it would be something that affected the profits or losses of a company, but in the context of this amendment and Bill I should not have thought that that was an appropriate test to apply. Can the noble Baroness explain the meaning and effect of "commercially" in these circumstances?
§ Baroness Farrington of RibbletonThe noble Lord asks a specific question to which I shall try to reply. I may find it necessary to write to him in order to answer the point more fully. I expect the word to mean that disclosure of information would have an adverse impact, usually in the context of competitors. However, should that explanation prove to be wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
§
Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
("() Authorising regulators to appoint suitable persons to exercise any such functions and conferring powers (such as those specified in section 108(4) of the Environment Act 1995) on persons so appointed.")
§ Page 6, line 32, after ("for") insert ("(or for the determination of)")
§ Page 7, line 5, at end insert—
§ ("Determination of matters by regulators
§ . The regulations may make provision for anything which, by virtue of paragraphs 5 to 8, could be provided for by the regulations to be determined under the regulations by regulators.")
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?
§ Lord Jenkin of RodingPerhaps I may raise a question which I have not sought to signal by way of amendment. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that one of the group of amendments discussed last time concerned charges. The noble Baroness in response gave a pretty clear answer but acknowledged that the charging structure and what was supposed to be within the costs of the regulator that had to be met by charges were not as clear as they might be. The noble Baroness said that she was in discussion with the CBI (and no doubt other interest groups outside) with a view to making more explicit what was intended to be covered by the charges and what was not. At this stage all I ask is whether the noble Baroness can give a progress report on that matter. Have there been discussions; if so, have they reached a conclusion? This may be a matter to which we may wish to return on Report if the situation is as unsatisfactory as it was represented to me a couple of months ago.
Lord RentonI should like to make a general comment on the schedule. Normally, when legislating we state the powers and principles in the clauses and leave detail to be dealt with in the schedule.
970 Here, however, we have a schedule setting out the list of the purposes. Some of the schedule goes into the detail that one would expect. But we have this strange Bill in which the Secretary of State will impose secondary, subordinate legislation upon Parliament. It is stated briefly that it has power to make regulations, but the substance of the matter is for a change appearing in a schedule. I think that that is wrong.
§ 5 p.m.
§ Lord WhittyI note the concerns of the noble Lord. They are part of his general concerns about the Bill. No doubt he will move on to them when moving Amendment No. 19 which stands in his name.
Providing precisely the list of purposes and procedures that can be adopted under the Bill gives a clear, definitive idea of what the Bill covers. The noble Lord seeks clarity. I should have thought that the form of the schedule provides exactly that clarity.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, it is true that we indicated during an earlier stage, and have done so more publicly, that the present regime of charging, in particular in relation to the Environment Agency, requires some modification and clarification. That is not necessarily a matter for primary or secondary legislation. It will be covered by the regulations. There will be a meeting, I believe on 29th April, between my colleague Michael Meacher and the CBI on this matter. I shall therefore be in a position to update the noble Lord before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
§ Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
§ Schedule 2 agreed to.
§ Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
§ Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 19:
§ Page 10. line 11, column 3, leave out ("Sections 1 to 28")
§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment—I understand that it has the support of many noble Lords in different parts of the Chamber—is to get the Government to amend and replace those vitally important sections of the 1990 Act by primary legislation, which Parliament can amend, instead of doing so merely by regulation, which we have to accept or reject and cannot amend.
§ I shall not trouble the Committee with all the 28 clauses of the 1990 Bill. We are at Committee stage. We have plenty of time to consider the matter further. However, in passing I should mention that Section 23 of the 1990 Act sets out a list of criminal offences. It is most unusual to create criminal offences by regulation. They nearly always go, and rightly so, into primary legislation. However, there are many other reasons why we should not, in a sweeping way, repeal primary legislation which is of national importance. It affects the health and well being of our people; and has to be dovetailed with the European directive.
§ I have been in Parliament for 53 years, in the other House and then this place. This is the most far reaching example of legislation by reference replacing primary legislation. There is no precedent for doing so on this scale of which I know except in time of war; and that 971 did not happen in the past 53 years. In wartime of course emergencies have to be dealt with in a ruthless way. But we are not dealing with that situation. Why are the Government making provision in this unconstitutional and unusual way instead of in a way that preserves the sovereignty of Parliament?
§ If we amend the Bill now by striking out the repeal of those 28 sections, the Government can either table the necessary amendments at Report stage or before the Bill reaches another place; or completely rewrite them if they think that that would make clearer law which users of the statute—millions of people will be affected by it—would understand more clearly.
§ The Bill is a piece of complicated legislation by reference which has no finality because even then we have to go by the regulations that we shall not be able to amend. It is really bad.
§ I hope that the Committee will agree that we should strike out the repeal of those 28 sections of the 1990 Act. I hope that the Government will show themselves willing to replace them by primary legislation at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Lord Jenkin of RodingI support my noble friend on this far reaching amendment. I hope that the Committee will mark its displeasure at the way in which the Government have handled the Bill from the outset. They have made stout efforts to amend the earlier errors, but, as we said earlier, they should never have embarked down this unconstitutional road.
The Select Committee, in a phrase which has been referred to in the debates, said that it would not wish this Bill to be regarded as a precedent for the future. One knows that those words have frequently been uttered on previous occasions in all kinds of contexts. It is a pious hope. Whitehall will recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has had a fairly uncomfortable time. He has done well to have achieved as much as he has. Nevertheless, once Whitehall sees that it can legislate in this way it will not pay too much attention to that.
If we were to send the Bill to another place having removed the repeal of the first 28 clauses of the 1990 Act, it would bring it home to Ministers, and perhaps even more to their advisers, that this was an inadvisable way to proceed. We shall listen to what the Minister says, but I hope that at the end of the debate my noble friend will feel that it might be right to press the amendment to a Division.
§ Lord Dixon-SmithThe amendment goes to the heart of our earlier debates on the way in which the Bill has been drafted. That gives me no satisfaction. However, it must be said that there will be less likelihood of the other place correcting a fundamental matter in the Bill. For that reason, I support my noble friend's amendment. Legislation should be clear, readable and supervisable by Parliament.
The problem with going down the regulatory route is that we can either approve or reject a regulation, but we cannot amend it. That may appear to be satisfactory; by convention we have operated in that way. However, when one sees this kind of primary legislation being 972 taken off the statute book and brought back in the form of regulations, the convention is placed under the most severe strain. The time may come when that convention will need to be examined. That is not a happy situation and I wish that it were not so. I support my noble friend's amendment.
§ Lord WhittyI understand the strength of feeling expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, both in Committee and privately about this aspect of the Bill. However, words such as "unconstitutional" and "unprecedented" are not historically appropriate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, if not in his place is at least present in our proceedings here. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that although the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee noted that we were replacing primary legislation by regulations it did not comment on that aspect of the Bill.
I also note that the provisions introduced within the amendment I have made today go a long way not only to meeting the objections of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, but also in making it absolutely clear that there is parliamentary sovereignty over proceedings under the Bill.
§ Lord Pearson of RannochI thank the Minister for giving way. He may have implied to anyone reading Hansard that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, was present in the Chamber and therefore perhaps lending strength to his comments. I do not see the noble Lord.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Lord WhittyIf noble Lords read Hansard carefully they will note that I was not indicating that. I made no such contention. I rely entirely on the wording of the Select Committee report in this respect.
As regards breaking a principle by replacing primary legislation with regulations, that is not unprecedented. I agree that it is unusual, but: it is not unprecedented. My department examined what its predecessors had done in this respect. I admit that I could not find an example when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was in government, but I did the next best thing and found an example when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was in government. It occurred in respect of the Local Government Act 1972, which removed whole swathes of legislation and replaced them by regulation. And quite rightly, too, because, similarly the area needed to respond to differing circumstances and to technical and other changes.
We are not debating the principle of regulation, therefore; we are debating regulation in an area of rapidly changing technology. That is an important aspect of government activity. It gives a more flexible instrument than a piece of primary legislation. It deals with evolving issues.
In this case, it also deals with a situation in which we are trying to produce a coherent regime which incorporates European legislation and makes it compatible with legislation already on the statute book which received multi-party support. The objective of the 973 whole legislation is to achieve a coherent and understandable regime. The Government, the CBI and all other interested parties want to create a coherent regime. The best way of achieving that is not to legislate under the European Communities Act, but to provide clear, one-stop-shop regulations for the whole of the industry covering all aspects of pollution control. That is why the CBI recognises that the changes we have made in the Bill deal with the issues of parliamentary sovereignty and principle and yet provide a flexible and clear instrument under which industry will work.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, says that potentially we are creating new offences under the regulations. Clearly, as in my Amendment No. 12, to which we have agreed, any new offences would be subject to affirmative resolution, as in many other areas of offence-creating law. I believe that grouping together the various regimes and the regime we are now required to apply under European legislation so as to provide flexibility and clarity is a better way of proceeding than having a rigid piece of legislation on the statute book. That will put everything in one place rather than creating a piece of legislation which might subsequently need amendment in the light of changing circumstances, either technologically or as a result of scientific knowledge or changes at European level.
If the amendment were to be adopted, we would pass on to another place a piece of incoherent legislation. The only choice which the other place would then have would be either to reject it or to create legislation which was utterly rigid and which in subsequent years would require parliamentary time to change it. I believe that all parties in this House, all noble Lords who have spoken and all the interested groups which have presented their opinions, require some degree of flexibility. That flexibility, under existing pressures on parliamentary and other time, requires these issues to be dealt with under regulations and not on the face of the Bill.
That is why we have taken this step. I accept that it is unusual. It is also unusual to try to apply European legislation alongside and make it compatible with existing regimes with which British industry is already familiar. It is not usual but it is desirable. It has been recognised as desirable throughout this House, throughout this debate and throughout British industry as a whole.
If we were to do anything else, we would create a costly muddle of possibly contradictory regulations. We therefore accept the concerns. In making substantial changes to subsequent regulations subject to the affirmative procedure—and I accept the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the House has powers in relation to the affirmative procedure, although I am not encouraging it to use those powers—parliamentary sovereignty is safeguarded, which meets the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
I ask the Committee to recognise that the objectives of putting this part of the Bill and what was pre-existing legislation into regulations are not sinister and in no way challenge the authority of the House or Parliament. They are intended to provide coherence, clarity and the ability of Parliament, the legal system and industry to comply with what we all recognise as an important step forward 974 in pollution control and therefore the control of dangers to our environment. Most people out there would accept that. I ask noble Lords to recognise that and the noble Lord, Lord Renton—albeit that I acknowledge his sincerity and concern—to accept that we have met most of his concerns by the amendments already adopted this afternoon. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord RentonThe Minister has done his best in reply to the arguments but I am sorry to say that his replies are not valid. Of course, there are precedents but there is no precedent for a Bill of national and international importance on this scale to be replaced by regulation. As to incorporating European Union directives, we have incorporated some of a minor kind by regulation but those of a major kind have been incorporated in our statute law—as on this occasion. One could go on to answer every point that the Minister made but I shall not weary your Lordships. I seek the opinion of the Committee.
§ 5.21 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 136.
976| Division No. 1 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Addison, V. | Fookes, B. |
| Ailesbury, M. | Gardner of Parkes, B. |
| Ailsa, M. | Garel-Jones, L. |
| Alexander of Tunis, E. | Geddes, L. |
| Anelay of St Johns, B. | Gray of Contin, L. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Halsbury, E. |
| Attlee, E. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Harding of Petherton, L. |
| Biddulph, L. | Harrowby, E. |
| Blatch, B. | Henley, L. [Teller.] |
| Bowness, L. | HolmPatrick, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Hooper, B. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Hylton-Foster, B. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Jenkin of Roding, L. |
| Burnham, L. [Teller.] | Kingsdown, L. |
| Butterworth, L. | Kinnoull, E. |
| Byford, B. | Knight of Collingtree, B. |
| Cadman, L. | Lamont of Lerwick, L. |
| Caithness, E. | Lang of Monkton, L. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Lawson of Blaby, L. |
| Chalker of Wallasey, B. | Leigh, L. |
| Charteris of Amisfield, L. | Liverpool, E. |
| Chesham, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. |
| Clanwilliam, E. | Luke, L. |
| Coleridge, L. | Lyell, L. |
| Courtown, E. | McColl of Dulwich, L. |
| Cox, B. | Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. |
| Crickhowell, L. | Marlesford, L. |
| Davidson, V. | Middleton, L. |
| Dean of Hatptree, L. | Miller of Hendon, B. |
| Denton of Wakefield, B. | Molyneaux of Killead, L. |
| Dixon-Smith, L. | Monro of Langholm, L. |
| Dundonald, E. | Montgomery of Alamein, V |
| Dunrossil, V. | Montrose, D. |
| Effingham, E. | Morris, L. |
| Elliott of Morpeth, L. | Moyne, L. |
| Elton, L. | Munster, E. |
| Ferrers, E. | Naseby, L. |
| Nathan, L. | Seccombe, B. |
| Norrie, L. | Sharples, B. |
| Nunburnholme, L. | Shaw of Northstead, L. |
| Oxfuird, V. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Park of Monmouth, B. | Skidelsky, L. |
| Pearson of Rannoch, L. | Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L |
| Pender, L. | Strathcarron, L. |
| Peyton of Yeovil, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Quinton, L | Thurlow, L. |
| Renton, L. | Vivian, L. |
| Rotherwick, L. | Wade of Chorlton, L. |
| St. Davids, V. | Wilcox, B. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Acton, L. | Hughes of Woodside, L. |
| Ahmed, L. | Hunt of Kings Heath, L. |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.] |
| Alli, L. | |
| Amos, B. | Islwyn, L. |
| Archer of Sandwell, L. | Janner of Braunstone, L. |
| Bach, L. | Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.] |
| Barnett, L. | |
| Bassam of Brighton, L. | Jenkins of Hillhead, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Jenkins of Putney, L. |
| Berkeley, L. | Kirkhill, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Leathers, V. |
| Blease, L. | Lockwood, B. |
| Borrie, L. | Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. |
| Bragg, L. | Longford, E. |
| Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. | Lovell-Davis, L. |
| Brookeborough, V. | Macdonald of Tradeston, L. |
| Brookman, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] |
| Burlison, L. | Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. |
| Carlisle, E. | Mackie of Benshie, L. |
| Carter, L. [Teller.] | Maddock, B. |
| Christopher, L. | Mar and Kellie, E. |
| Clarke of Hampstead, L. | Marsh, L. |
| Clement-Jones, L. | Mason of Barnsley, L. |
| Clinton-Davis, L. | Merlyn-Rees, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Milner of Leeds, L. |
| Currie of Marylebone, L. | Mishcon, L. |
| David, B. | Molloy, L. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Monkswell, L. |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. | Montague of Oxford, L. |
| Desai, L. | Morris of Castle Morris, L. |
| Dholakia, L. | Morris of Manchester, L. |
| Dixon, L. | Newby, L. |
| Donoughue, L. | Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Nicol, B. |
| Evans of Parkside, L. | Northfield, L. |
| Evans of Watford, L. | Orme, L. |
| Falconer of Thoroton, L. | Oxford, Bp. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Patel, L. |
| Geraint, L. | Paul, L. |
| Gilbert, L. | Perry of Walton, L. |
| Goodhart, L. | Peston, L. |
| Gordon of Strathblane, L. | Pitkeathley, B. |
| Gould of Potternewton, B. | Plant of Highfield, L. |
| Gregson, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Grenfell, L. | Prys-Davies, L. |
| Hacking, L. | Puttnam, L. |
| Hamwee, B. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Hanworth, V. | Rea, L. |
| Hardie, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Hardy of Wath, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Harris of Greenwich, L. | Richard, L. |
| Harris of Haringey, L. | Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. |
| Haskel, L. | Roll of Ipsden, L. |
| Hayman, B. | St. John of Bletso, L. |
| Hilton of Eggardon, B. | Sawyer, L. |
| Hollis of Heigham, B. | Sefton of Garston, L. |
| Hooson, L. | Shepherd, L. |
| Hoyle, L. | Shore of Stepney, L. |
| Hughes, L. | Simon, V. |
| Simon of Highbury, L. | Thornton, B. |
| Stair, E. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Stoddart of Swindon, L. | Uddin, B. |
| Strabolgi, L. | Walker of Doncaster, L. |
| Symons of Vernham Dean, B. | Weatherill, L. |
| Taverne, L. | Whitty, L. |
| Taylor of Blackburn, L. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
| Tenby, V. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Thomas of Walliswood, B. | Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. |
§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ 5.29 p.m.
§ Schedule 3 agreed to.
§ Clause 4 agreed to.
§ In the Title:
§
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 20:
Line 1, leave out from ("make) to ("; and") in line 2 and insert ("further provision for the prevention and control of pollution arid to implement European Community Directive 96/61 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control")
§ The noble Lord said: I begin to feel that I have a certain masochistic tendency about bringing forward this amendment. Again, it sets out to try to improve the wording of the Bill, on this occasion in its Long Title.
§
The existing wording states that it is to:
Make provision for a new system of pollution prevention and control; and for connected purposes".
§
That is inadequate. It is not entirely a new system and "further provision" is a better description of what the Bill is about. The description that it is,
to implement European Community Directive 96/61 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control",
§ is a matter of fact. If had not been for that particular European Community directive, I suspect that we should not be seeing this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord RentonAs it stands, this Bill is a mass of detailed, regulating powers and this is an attempt to inform the public—all those people, here and abroad, who must comply with it. Its purpose really should be made clear.
The purpose clause which we discussed earlier would have achieved that purpose. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is not in his place just at this moment, suggested that we should amend the Long Title. There is a lot to be said for that. As it stands, the Long Title tells us very little. It states that it is a Bill to:
Make provision for a new system of pollution prevention and control; and for connected purposes".That tells us practically nothing whereas the amendment states the fact on which the Bill is founded. The amendment states that the Bill seeks to make,further provision for the prevention and control of pollution and to implement European Community Directive 96/61",which is not mentioned in the Bill,on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control".977 The words "and for connected purposes" would remain in the Long Title. Therefore, I suggest that we are helping the Government and trying to do them a service by putting forward this amendment. I hope that they will have the good sense to accept it.
§ Lord WhittyI understand both the reason for raising the point and the tone with which it has been pressed. In response to the earlier intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I said that my current advice is that once the Bill is produced, we cannot change its Long Title unless other amendments require us to do so. I am not sure that any such amendment has been passed in the course of the afternoon to require that. I need to take advice on that issue before I can support any such move.
I have, earlier this afternoon, already given a commitment to the Committee that I shall consider whether a better definition of the purpose clause would be a beneficial improvement to the Bill. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that I shall consider the Long Title in that same context, bearing in mind the strong legal and procedural advice that I have received on what we can change in terms of the Long Title at this stage.
It may be that we shall be able to discuss that commitment between now and Report and, in view of that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, at this stage at least.
§ Baroness HamweeI hope that the Minister will be successful in obtaining advice that the Long Title should reflect what is in the Bill. I understand that it would be wrong to amend it, anticipating amendments which have not been accepted. However, we do not want to have a situation in which, to the casual reader—should there be a casual reader of such legislation—the Long Title does not indicate the thrust of the Bill. If that is the case, we, as legislators, are not doing a service to those who need to refer to the legislation. In some senses, the Long Title is a sort of index as to the overall thrust of what is in the Bill. Without changing the way in which the regulations are to be dealt with, I hope that it will be possible to provide in the Long Title a reference-point to the way in which the directive is being approached.
Lord RentonI should amplify what I said earlier about the lack of reference in the Bill to the European Community directive. I should have added that there is an obscure reference in one of the schedules.
§ Lord Jenkin of RodingThroughout the afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has been at pains to tell the Committee just how much change has been made to the Bill compared with the Bill introduced to the House last December. Indeed, it is not unfair to say—he is entitled to some credit for this—that large parts of the Bill have been rewritten.
It seems to me that in those circumstances one is obliged to look again at the Long Title to see whether it reflects what is in the Bill. It may have reflected the 978 provisions of the Bill as first introduced. However, many amendments have been accepted. both previously in Committee and much more so today. In those circumstances, it is right to look again at the Long Title.
In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is hoist by his own petard. Either he has changed the Bill to meet a large number of requirements, in which case he should change the Long Title, or it is all cosmetic, in which case he leaves it as it is. But he cannot have it both ways.
§ Lord WhittyWhether or not I am hoist by my own petard, which is not a totally unfamiliar position for me, at present I am constrained by the legal advice which I have received. Therefore, I cannot move at present in relation to the Long Title. But, as I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, both as regards an amended purpose clause and an amendment to the Long Title, I shall consider the matter further and consult the noble Lord and other noble Lords who are interested before Report stage. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will feel that it is not necessary to press it at this stage. I hope that we shall reach an accommodation at a later stage of the Bill.
§ Lord Dixon-SmithI am grateful to those who have spoken in support of the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, this is now a very different Bill from the original draft. I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply, which gives some cause for hope. I am also grateful for his earlier reply. If we cannot handle the matter one way, perhaps we can handle it in another. There are supposed to be more ways than one of killing a cat. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.