HL Deb 19 April 1999 vol 599 cc941-56

(" . The purpose of this Act is to create a single Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control system which strengthens the system introduced under sections 1 to 28 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and includes the system of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control in accordance with European Community Directive 96/61.")

Lord Renton

Before my noble friend goes further, it is important for me to point out that the grouping of the amendments is not acceptable. The Government have grouped Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 19 and 20. Amendments Nos. 1, 19 and 20 deal with separate important issues, whereas Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 12 are minor government amendments dealing in detail with the regulation-making power of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 1 is an important new purpose clause and Amendment No. 19 prevents the Government repealing Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which consists of 28 clauses, by secondary legislation that cannot be amended by either House and virtually turns both Houses into rubber stamps.

Amendment No. 20 amends the Long Title to reveal what the Bill is about, but we cannot do that until we have considered all the amendments. The Government are not entitled to require the Committee to accept the grouping. It is for your Lordships to say whether or not the grouping should be accepted. In those circumstances, I suggest that the grouping is not reasonable.

Lord Whitty

I understand the noble Lord's substantive point. I understood that the grouping had been agreed through the normal channels but, as always, the grouping remains informal and non-binding. The noble Lord has an agreement from the Government that we should recommit the Bill. We were open to a more flexible approach. If the noble Lord wishes to press for the removal of his amendments from the group, no doubt he can. All the amendments in the group seem to address the central issue raised in the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and in the previous commitment stage, in terms of what is on the face of the Bill and in regulations. Therefore, it would seem logical to take all those amendments together. The noble Lord may not regard the government amendments as adequate. Nevertheless, they address the same subject and have the same origin as the other amendments in the group. At the end of the day, I am in the hands of the Committee.

Lord Renton

With respect, the Minister has not got that right. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not deal with the purpose clause. Neither did it deal with amendment of the Long Title. Those are quite separate and important matters.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I wonder if I may say a word—as, in a sense, the responsibility is mine? I would normally have been asked to agree the groupings. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, nobody contacted me about them at the end of last week. I was not aware of the potential list until I arrived here this morning at about a quarter-past 12, which was too late for the groupings to be amended in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicates his disagreement, but that is as I understood it. I accepted what I understood to be a de facto situation. We can surely deal with this matter quite easily by taking Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 off the list and speaking to them at the end of the Committee stage. Perhaps that will go a long way towards meeting my noble friend's problem.

Lord Carter

In the usual way, the groupings list is circulated and there was plenty of time to dispute it this morning if the noble Lord wished to do so. As the grouping is voluntary, the easiest way to deal with the matter now is in the way that the Committee wishes. If it wants to degroup Amendment No. 19, it can. The amendment is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He can speak to it in its place on the list of amendments, rather than in the first group.

Lord Renton

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Amendment No. 19 raises an important separate issue—perhaps the most important that will be considered today.

Lord Dixon-Smith

In speaking to Amendment No. 11 want to thank the Government for agreeing to the recommital of the Bill. In a very busy parliamentary programme that is a generous concession. The more restricted rules of debate on Report would not have allowed proper examination of the government amendments. If those amendments are approved they will alter and improve the Bill a great deal and they also deserve our recognition as a necessary but nonetheless generous concession. Again, I express my gratitude to the Government.

We have never objected to the purposes of the Bill. We are as anxious as the Government to see a proper Bill on the statute book. Our objection was to the form of the original draft. I hope that after our debate today the Bill will make more rapid progress. The original draft was nothing more than an open framework to make regulations, which generally receive less scrutiny than primary legislation.

I asked in the Library how many Bills there have been that are similar in form to this one. The Library found only one that commences with the power to make regulations and it concerns employment tribunals—a rather more specific subject than the one we are debating. Moreover, that statute did not set out to replace a whole part of an Act of Parliament by orders, which is a subject to which we shall be returning. The Library found only two other Bills that contain order-making powers in their first section. Bills in the form of the original draft are rare.

The Select Committee on delegated powers was very critical of the original draft in its third report for this Session—stating, inter alia, that it would not wish the drafting to be used as a precedent. The Select Committee has looked again at the Bill in light of the Government's proposed amendments, which greatly modify the Bill. Once again they say that the Bill should not be regarded as a precedent. The ninth report, dated 10th March, stated: We therefore wish to reiterate the following general remarks which we made in our 3rd report. 'Even if the House accepts the bill with any such amendments as being justified for the reasons which the DETR give for proceeding by such wide ranging enabling legislation, the Committee would not wish this Bill to be regarded as a precedent for the future'". However, my interpretation of that conclusion this time is that it is the same as my own. The Bill, even though far from perfect when amended, must now make progress if the United Kingdom is to have appropriate legislation on the statute book in time to meet the time limit proposed by European Community Directive 96/61.

That point returns me to the amendment. It is our view that there should be, on the face of the Bill, a purpose other than that of making regulations at the commencement, so that the Bill conforms more closely with the general way that legislation is normally drafted. The amendment does just that. The Government may argue that it is tautological. That may be so, but if the Government had tackled the Bill's drafting in a more thorough and conventional way from the start we would not be having this debate.

The amendment changes the opening lines of the Bill so that its purpose is made clear in its commencement lines. As presently drafted, the Bill's purpose might appear to be the making of regulations. Amendment No. 1 states that the Bill's purpose is to meet the requirements of the European directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. The power to regulate then follows. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

I support my noble friend's amendment. Purpose clauses are always desirable and sometimes necessary. I suggest that in this case, it is necessary to have a purpose clause because, quite frankly, as my noble friend pointed out—and as is well known—this is a Bill which merely enables the Secretary of State, by subordinate legislation, to do things which are of national and international importance and which have so far been covered by the primary legislation of this country.

For this Bill to go forward without revealing its; purposes is utterly wrong. With those deplorable factors in mind, perhaps I may elaborate a little on the way in which my noble friend and others who have worked with him have drafted this purpose clause.

The Explanatory Notes, which are of great help and value in understanding the Bill but which are not pan: of the law, which the Government issued when the Bill was first published make the position quite clear in paragraphs 4 to 7. Paragraph 6 states: The purpose of the Bill is to enable a single, coherent pollution control system to be set up", and it then sets out how that is to be done; namely, by regulation, which is most extraordinary. So that purpose has been expressed in the new clause.

However, the Explanatory Notes also make it clear that the Government, quite rightly, intend to strengthen our existing system which is expressed in Part I of the 1990 Act, all 28 clauses of which are to be repealed. The Government have made clear also that they intend to implement the EC Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control which must be done by 30th October this year.

Therefore, we have made clear in our purpose clause that that is a principal aim of the Bill. It is something which cannot be derived, even by careful reading, from the Bill itself. If the Government do not believe that the purpose clause goes far enough—I suppose they may think that—they can agree to this amendment now and extend the purpose clause, if they think necessary, on Report. I hope that my noble friend will receive full support from the Government in relation to this purpose clause.

Lord Whitty

At this stage, it may he helpful if I indicate generally the Government's approach to this matter. It may be helpful also for me to spread my remarks rather wider than merely speaking to my amendments in the group because I believe that the Government have responded both to the feelings expressed originally in Committee and to the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. There have also been various informal discussions in the interim with which noble Lords will be familiar.

Clearly there was a problem with the Bill. In all humility, the Government accepted that and we have done quite a bit to meet those problems. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was generous in his remarks, but it took quite a lot of persuasion on his part to convince me that a recommitment stage would be sensible because, in many ways, we have changed the nature of the Bill in the amendments we have tabled. Therefore, it may be helpful to the Committee to know our overall approach.

The Delegated Powers Committee gave its opinion on the Bill, which was fairly robust. It concluded that the powers which were being delegated were too wide; were not clearly enough defined; and were not subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We debated those points with some vigour and we have considered them.

The first of the Delegated Powers Committee's suggestions was: whether the legislation should be limited to matters provided in Schedule 1". The government amendments which have now been tabled do just that. They limit the scope of the Bill to set up a permit regime to regulate environmental pollution from installations and plant and to establish standards and objectives or to make plans relating to emissions. In other words, the purposes of the Bill are now confined to those items which are spelt out in Schedule 1.

The committee then asked whether there should be a clear indication of the ambit of powers which may be delegated and whether the categories of person to whom powers can be delegated should be specified. Amendment No. 10 in particular removes the general power to sub-delegate and allows it only for those functions necessary to maintain the flexibility of the regulator. I have also tabled a later amendment which meets the committee's recommendation that no regulation should be made without proper consultation Further, there is an amendment which meets all the Select Committee's recommendations about the use of the affirmative procedure. Therefore, we have restored substantially the area of parliamentary control about which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others were deeply concerned, as was the Delegated Powers Committee.

We have gone further than the Select Committee's recommendations. Later today I shall move amendments to meet some of the other points raised in the debate in February. They will provide greater clarification of the definition of "environmental pollution"; modify the provision relating to the regulator's powers; and include a provision for the protection of commercially confidential information. That is a substantial move and one which has been acknowledged by the Select Committee.

I asked the Delegated Powers Committee to comment on the proposed government amendments, should it so wish. It has done so. Its conclusion is: We are, therefore, satisfied with the Government's response to our 3rd Report … Taken together, these amendments would circumscribe and provide criteria for what were previously excessively wide powers". Therefore, the amendments meet the points made by the Delegated Powers Committee and those raised previously in Committee.

That approval goes wider than the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the CBI. In a letter dated 22nd March, the CBI expressed its approval of the way in which the Government are proposing to handle those issues. The CBI is keen to ensure that we maintain coherence. Its letter states: Our preference is for a specific Bill to put the IPPC Directive into effect rather than implementation through the 1972 European Communities Act". That would have permitted much less parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations. The CBI went on to recognise the value of delegating regulations by saying: We recognise that the Bill must allow for powers to change the law by regulations in certain areas to retain flexibility … We believe the amendments you have put down … create safeguards for business in providing for consultation and allowing for the scrutiny of Regulations in key areas by the affirmative resolution procedure". Government Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 probably provide the most important safeguards. That has been recognised by the Delegated Powers Committee and those amendments are supported by the CBI and the Environment Agency. I have received a letter from the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, who unfortunately cannot be with us today. Other noble Lords may have received a copy of that letter.

Indeed, the amendments go much further than the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. Therefore, I believe that the Government have met the anxieties which were expressed previously in Committee and by the Delegated Powers Committee. In doing so, I acknowledge that there have been drafting difficulties with the Bill. However, we have now addressed them and I hope that the Committee will accept that.

In view of the fact that I have agreed to a recommitment stage, I hope that the Committee will not object if I take advantage of the flexibility provided by that to come back on the specific amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so that I may deal also with other points which noble Lords are anxious to raise. However, I ask Members of the Committee to understand the wide-ranging scope of the government amendments. I thought it helpful to explain the position at this stage.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

The Minister should be congratulated on his miracle of understatement when he said that there have been drafting difficulties in relation to the Bill. We can all go along with that without any difficulty.

I wondered why the Minister rose to his feet so early in what is likely to be a brief discussion. I was impressed by what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the need for a purpose clause and by what my noble friend Lord Renton said. In rising to his feet so early, I thought that the Minister wished to add to the welcome, friendly atmosphere which has prevailed so far by saying that, of course, he will accept the amendment. However, he did not. He plunged into the deeper waters of the later stages of the Bill. I should have thought that his immediate acceptance of this reasonable amendment would be a further gesture of good intentions.

I do not want to underrate the importance of my noble friend's amendment but, as I understand it, he is giving the Government free, gratis, for nothing and without any charge a decent quantity of face powder which the Government can use to cover their obvious embarrassment about the way in which they have handled the Bill up to now. I hope that nothing that the Minister has said so far indicates his intention to advise the House to reject the amendment.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

As my name stands to this amendment, perhaps I may speak now. If at any stage I am inaudible or incoherent that will be because this morning I had a wisdom tooth extracted and I am still suffering the effects.

Lord Renton

Your wisdom is still there!

Lord Jenkin of Boding

I am not sure about that. My noble friend is very kind.

I want to make one or two points arising out of the earlier discussion. First, this is the first Bill of which I have had experience where we have operated a new procedure; namely, the Marshalled List is produced not on the day of consideration, but on the previous Sitting day. That happened to be last Thursday. However, we did not receive the groupings until this morning when, as I have said, I was otherwise engaged.

Although it is helpful to have the amendments relisted in the order in which they will be taken and doubly helpful to have numbers allocated to them—the primary purpose—we should like to have even a tentative list of groupings at the same time, particularly when a weekend intervenes. I attempted to get hold of a draft groupings list over the weekend and I was told by the Printed Paper Office that that would be impossible. However, we received one this morning.

My second point is that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is right. He has moved a long way towards meeting the complaints of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and the points made in an earlier Committee stage from all parts of the House. I am grateful to see noble Lords who took part in those debates in their places. I hope that I am not out of order in saying that if anybody imagines that that would have happened in another place, in the present circumstances, they have a bigger imagination than I have. This is the House of Lords at its best. I refer both to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and to our earlier debates in Committee.

I believe that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, whom I support, made a strong case for wanting at the outset of the Bill a clear statement of its purpose. I share the disappointment of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil that so far the Government have not indicated any readiness to agree. Legislation has to be interpreted by the courts. One cannot imagine a more useful way of indicating to the courts the purpose of the Bill, so that when they interpret the clauses and the regulations under the clauses, they will have the purpose on the face of the Bill.

I understand that it is open to the courts to look at what was said in the course of the debates, particularly from the Government Front Bench. However, I would rather see that on the face of the Bill in the form of Amendment No. 1. If the amendment is not worded correctly, perhaps there may be another opportunity to correct that.

I too have read the letter from the chairman of the Environment Agency, although I did not receive my copy until after five o'clock on Thursday when it was no longer possible to table fresh amendments. I am afraid that the agency did not understand the new procedure. I have replied to the chairman, stating that we shall have to return to his points at a later stage because it was too late to take account of what he had said, notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend's amendment had been tabled for some time.

Perhaps that is not right, but, in the meantime, it embodies an enormously important principle that, when legislating for substantial delegated powers, in pursuance of a directive from the European Union, it is very important to have a clear purpose clause at the front of a Bill. I hope that, on reflection and having heard the debate, the Minister will feel able to accept that—if not now, perhaps at a later stage. I regard this amendment as extremely important and I hope that it will be pressed.

Baroness Hamwee

On the new arrangements, as a member of the Procedure Committee which made recommendations to the House as to the publication of the Marshalled List and the publication of the groupings, I am sure that if noble Lords feel that the arrangements are not working well that committee, when and if it is appropriate, will look at them again. I am probably entirely out of place in saying that as a mere member of the committee, but I know that that has been the approach of both the working group appointed by the Leader of the House and the committee. I was very glad to receive the Marshalled List early.

On the late delivery of the letter from the chairman of the Environment Agency, I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that perhaps he was lucky to have received a letter about this afternoon' s proceedings at least before the proceedings took place. Frequently, I receive correspondence after a debate has taken place.

Perhaps I can, not too obsequiously—I hope it will not be held against me on future occasions—congratulate the Minister on what he personally has achieved in ensuring that this afternoon we have before us amendments which do so much to rectify the position which we all acknowledge was unsatisfactory. One can only imagine what may have gone on behind the scenes. I suspect that the Minister had a substantial hand in what we have before us. I am sure that the House is very grateful to him for that.

On Amendment No. 1, I have often been on the side of those who have proposed a purpose clause when that purpose clause has been at odds with the real purpose of the Bill. So often it is a device for debating, early in the proceedings, the policy to be incorporated in the Bill. This afternoon we are in a different position. The Committee is generally agreed that the purposes of the Bill are good purposes and ones that we want to see enacted. There is, however, the possible technical problem that the clause refers to Sections 1 to 28 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which, subject to later amendments, would be repealed in any event, but I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with that.

Perhaps the Minister could answer one question. I am a little ashamed to ask it, given, as I say, that I have taken part in other debates on purpose clauses. Technically, will a purpose clause restrict subsequent provisions of the Bill? In other words, will it be a guide to the enforcers of the system, or will it prevent orders which are outside the narrow confines of the purpose clause so that the purpose clause will override the later provisions dealing with the order-making powers or, at any rate, constrain their application?

Lord Skelmersdale

As a newcomer to this Bill, but I hope a fairly objective one, I observed from listening to the debate over the past half-hour that we are in effect presented with two purpose clauses. One is that moved by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and spoken to by my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Jenkin of Roding and others and the other is the Government's Amendment No. 3 which seeks to make the Bill read: The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision", for any of the purposes listed in Part I, Schedule 1. Although it is not spelt out in the same sort of detail as in my noble friend's amendment, it is in effect starting with a purpose reference. But—a very big "but"—we have to delve into Part I, Schedule 1, to find out what the purpose really is, whereas my noble friends made it crystal clear that, were their amendment to be accepted, it would stare us straight in the face the moment we opened the statute book.

My only question to the Minister is this: are the words in the purpose clause, which all sides are agreed is necessary, accurate? If they are, it is a far better purpose clause than that of the Government.

Lord Renton

Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I can add a few words to the debate.

I hope the Government realise that we are trying to help them and to protect the sovereignty of both Houses of Parliament—at any rate that of another place. The Minister relies upon amendments that he tabled after our original Committee stage and claims that they declare the purpose of the Bill. They do not. All that they do is slightly elaborate the regulation-making power upon which the Government rely to give the Secretary of State the power to turn primary legislation into subordinate legislation, as to which Parliament can only say yes or no.

The noble Lord relied upon the work of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which has done great service to this House. But I feel bound to point out that on this occasion its conclusions are a trifle inconsistent. They are stated in two paragraphs. In paragraph 8 of its last report the committee says: It remains important that the purposes"— I stress the word "purposes"— and ambit of legislation, together with any important governing criteria, should be clearly specified within the primary legislation and not simply left to the exercise of delegated powers". In the last paragraph, having said that it was not to be regarded as a precedent, the committee tried to help the Government in the clarification of the power to make subordinate legislation which they have so far put forward.

The Delegated Powers Committee, splendid though it is—I know it and have great respect for it—is merely advisory to us; we are not bound by its conclusions. It is important that we should regard its paragraph 8 as of overriding importance compared with the compromise in paragraph 9.

It is reassuring to hear the support from a number of my noble friends and from the noble Baroness. I hope that the Government will acknowledge our desire to help them by improving the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Behind all the arguments crystallised in this amendment is a general consideration; that is, that there is no question but that delegated legislation is far more convenient to the Executive and particularly to the officials. It is an appalling bore for Parliament that your Lordships and the other place insist on going through a Bill line by line. In our House we repeat that three times and in the other place it is again twice. We can amend Bills freely. The great advantage to the Executive of subordinate legislation is that it cannot be amended. That is probably the sticking point.

There have been repeated efforts to argue that Parliament—in particular your Lordships—may not reject secondary legislation. Happily, that was rejected. On 20th October 1994, your Lordships specifically asserted that our power to reject subordinate legislation was quite untrammelled by any convention. It is true that your Lordships will not be inclined to exercise that power frequently, but that power exists. One of the circumstances where it will be exercised is where a Bill is a skeleton Bill and it is only in the subordinate legislation that we get the enacting provisions. In those circumstances, your Lordships would be fully entitled to reject any of the regulations which you feel are inappropriate.

We are singularly fortunate in having the Select Committee. From the outset it has been a strong committee. It was originally presided over by the late Lord Rippon of Hexham, and we now owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. I see the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his place. He was an original member of that committee, and my noble friend Lord Ampthill, who is also doing duty here, has been a member throughout. We are very much in its debt.

One other should be mentioned; that is, the legal adviser. We owe his appointment to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, as Leader of the House. We were singularly fortunate, as was the committee, in having a government lawyer of exceptional ability and experience able to take his place on that committee. Once again, it placed us in its debt.

I echo what has been said; that is, that we owe a debt also to the Minister, who has gone quite a long way to meet the fully justified criticism, even though only implied, of the Select Committee. That should not go unrecognised.

One comes to the purpose clause. As I understand it, a purpose clause is an aid to interpretation. The noble Baroness asked the Minister what was the effect of a purpose clause. He will correct me if I have it wrong, but in any case the Lord Advocate has recklessly put himself in the line of fire and is available to give an authoritative legal opinion. It undoubtedly has some subsidiary effect in limiting, particularly in the other place, the scope of amendments that might be made.

I have no objection to this purpose clause as it seems to me to be useful; but there is another way of doing it in this Bill and in every Bill; that is, to use the Long Title. The great advantage is that otherwise the Long Title serves no purpose whatever. In this case it is a Bill to, Make provision for a new system of pollution prevention and control; and for connected purposes". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will forgive me for saying that, even with his proposed addition, it really is very unilluminating. It is possible, however., to frame a Long Title so that it gives a guide to the purpose of a statute. The leading textbooks on the subject, Craies and Maxwell, give a number of examples where that has been done. It seems to me to be generally advantageous to declare the purpose of a statute in the Long Title, otherwise the Long Title is purely suprarogatory.

We are still at a Committee stage. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Renton and Lord Jenkin, consider withdrawing their amendment and that the Minister will consider withdrawing his to see whether a common purpose may not more advantageously be declared by re-framing the Long Title.

If the Long Title is left as it is, it is quite useless. No doubt it can be said that it provides employment for draftsmen, secretaries, typists, printers and bookbinders, but otherwise it serves no useful purpose at all. I hope that the suggestion might be considered of declaring a purpose in the Long Title. That bears on the question asked by the noble Baroness, because it is undoubtedly the law, whatever the answer is to her question, that the Long Title is merely an aid to interpretation and available only to resolve an ambiguity. I doubt very much whether a purpose clause does anything more, but I see that the Lord Advocate is in his place.

Lord Shepherd

The truth is that over the years the Select Committee has progressively broadened its parameters. I doubt whether, when we first met under Lord Rippon, we would have dared to put the proposal which is in this report. We would have thought it well beyond our competence; but that is the nature of this House and the strength of our committees.

I cannot help but be reminded of our discussing the purpose clause many years ago. There has always been a wish for that, even though delegated legislation was infinitely less in those days than it is today. The Lord Chancellor of the day, Lord Gardiner, came forward with a proposal that there should be a preface to the Bill; in other words, there would be in the preface an indication as to the purpose of the legislation. If it were in the preface it would therefore not be subject to that part of the Bill, or Act when passed, of which the judges would take cognisance. My understanding is that the judges take a view not on what Parliament has intended but on what Parliament has in fact passed. Your Lordships found the proposal interesting but in the end rejected it. It was too revolutionary.

If there is a wish to find a means of overcoming the matter of a purpose clause—I understand that there could be difficulties in limitations being placed not so much on this House but perhaps on another place if there were such clauses—one of the solutions might be to look at the proposals which were made by Lord Gardiner.

Lord Whitty

The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, chided me for not replying directly to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. That may have been appropriate at that point, but it is probably better that I reply to all the points that have been raised in this debate.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and other noble Lords for their kind words regarding the Government's flexibility. I also recognise the role that the Delegated Powers Committee has played not only in this context but in others, which I believe will be appreciated particularly by this House and by this Committee. I appreciate the indication by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that noble Lords are only trying to be helpful. But there is a degree to which helpfulness goes a little too far as far as the Government are concerned. The desire to accept not only the letter but also the spirit of the Delegated Powers Committee's comments seems to us to have been met, and more than met.

The Delegated Powers Committee referred to the transfer from the face of the Bill to regulations. It noted it and did not comment or make a recommendation. Where it has made a recommendation, we are meeting all of the points and more.

On the purpose of the Bill as such, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right that if we were to accept the noble Lord's amendment and my amendment we would in effect have two purpose clauses. I ask noble Lords to look at the effect of my amendment, which changes subsection (2) of Clause 1 to define the general purpose of the Bill as regulating activities which cause environmental pollution and controlling or preventing pollution emissions. Subsection (1) would restrict the purpose yet further to making regulations for the matters listed under Schedule 1, as I indicated.

The result is that the Secretary of State cannot act outside the scope set out in Schedule 1. Anything he does within the scope of that schedule must be done for the general purpose set out in subsection (2). In other words, my amendments create a purpose clause. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, may think it is not an adequate purpose clause; nevertheless, it is a clear purpose clause and the Government consider that it meets points which were made earlier, as indeed does the Delegated Powers Committee.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raises the alternative approach which relates to changing the Long Title. I am advised by the Lord Advocate—who is no longer in his seat—plus taking other expert advice, that once the Bill has been introduced the Long Title can only be amended once an amendment has been passed which alters the nature of the Bill and makes amendment of the Long Title appropriate—

4 p.m.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

Can the Minister say where he gets the proposition that a Long Title can only be amended once?

Lord Whitty

I believe that the noble and learned Lord misheard what I said. I did not say that it could only be amended once; I said that it can only be amended once—whatever form of speech that is—after the Bill itself has been amended so that an amendment to the Long Title became appropriate. It is therefore premature to consider amendment of the Long Title. That is my advice and Members of the Committee may wish to consider the matter later. However, at present we are dealing with the amendments now before us.

It is not only the case that I naturally prefer my new purpose clause to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it is also the fact that, were we to adopt the noble Lord's amendments, certain consequences would flow. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the purpose clause would restrict the subsequent clauses of the Bill. The answer is, yes, it would. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is that if we had two purpose clauses clearly some ambiguity would arise if both were adopted. I give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Skelmersdale

I am grateful to the Minister. I said that I saw these clauses as alternatives. Therefore, I could not possibly have pre-supposed, as he has twice suggested, that I saw both of them as being able to be written on the face of the Bill.

Lord Whitty

I accept the noble Lord's clarification. However, perhaps I may address the substance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The Government's proposals and the Bill as it stands are not adequately described in the purpose clause he proposes. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows only too well, we are not seeking to strengthen the pollution control regime established under the 1990 Act; we are seeking to replace and improve it with something based on the IPPC directive. In doing so, we are making a number of relatively minor changes, not all of which would be regarded as strengthening; in fact, a number of our changes are deregulatory. Therefore, in its current form, the noble Lord's amendment would not allow us to follow that course.

I refer again to the letter received by myself and some other noble Lords from the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, the Chairman of the Environment Agency. That letter refers to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Lord says: I assume that their intention in moving this amendment is to provide a check on the extent of the Bill's powers … If this is to be done via a statement of purpose, then it is essential that it is defined correctly… We are concerned that the amendment as worded might create confusion between the powers that can be applied under Schedule 1 and the purpose of the Bill. Given that the separate amendments that you— that is to say, the Government— have tabled would effectively limit the scope of the Regulation-making powers … I wonder whether the purpose clause is necessary or desirable". We are taking the opportunity to do more than simply implement the IPPC directive. We also intend to improve the offshore environmental regime, for example, by implementing coherently the requirements of the OSPAR agreement on the use and discharge of chemicals offshore and the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on pollution incidents involving offshore installations. Those matters were not dealt with in the 1990 Act regime nor indeed in the IPPC directive, and so would not be permissible under the noble Lord's new clause as drafted. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention but, nevertheless, that would be the effect.

The question is whether those powers are better delimited in the manner proposed by the Government, which the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has expressed to be satisfactory, or through the proposed new clause of the noble Lord. As it stands, I do not believe that the clause would be an improvement. While I might have accepted that a purpose clause was lacking in the original draft, I believe that the amendment I propose will meet the objection to the original Bill as drafted. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

While I am on my feet, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as regards the tabling of groupings. We are moving into a new procedure. Frankly, it would of course be most convenient for the Government if we were to have Marshalled Lists and groupings issued a lot earlier than is currently the case. Nevertheless, that is a matter for the authorities of the House rather than for me.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Before the Minister sits down, will he perhaps consider, as I do, that the difference between us is probably not much more than the thickness of a cigarette paper—that is, if anyone knows what a cigarette paper is in this modern age. I always accepted that our amendment might not be sufficiently well drafted. However, the issue is whether or not the purposes of the Bill should be set out at the beginning or should in fact appear somewhat further on within it.

My problem is purely psychological. Every time I read the Bill, the first words I come across are the following: The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision". I am sorry—indeed, I really am sorry—but I find myself wondering whether in fact it would be possible for the Minister to consider how he might shuffle the pack with the amendments he has proposed so that we get some of the words that he has put in his amendments placed at the beginning of the Bill before the first line that I have just quoted. If we could do that, I believe we would make most speedy progress.

Lord Ampthill

Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I should like to begin by expressing my apologies to him because it was I who first suggested that the Bill should be recommitted on the Floor of the House. I deeply regret the inconvenience to which the noble Lord has been put. I have sympathy with what the noble Lord's amendment proposes, but I feel that what the Minister has in Clause 1 is perfectly capable of amendment at a later stage. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is dissatisfied with it as it is presently placed, there is no reason why he could not rectify that at the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Whitty

I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. As I hope I have indicated, I do not believe that the wording of the noble Lord's new clause represents a difference between us which can be expressed as being merely the thickness of a cigarette paper. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Farrington, has explained to me what a cigarette paper is. I believe that the difference is slightly wider.

Our clause, as amended, gives an adequate description of the Bill and refers to the Bill's purpose. At the appropriate point, I shall be pressing my amendments. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment for the reasons that I have outlined. If amendments were to evolve at a later stage, I would be happy to consider a purpose clause which might meet my points. However, in the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. As I said, I shall be pressing my amendments at a later stage

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am sorry that the Minister feels that he cannot "shuffle the pack" at this stage in order to meet what I believe to be a highly desirable situation. Nevertheless, I understand that that might be technically difficult because one is re-drafting a re-draft of a re-draft, so to speak. Therefore, it is not exactly a straightforward matter. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate because there are important issues of principle involved. Indeed, they are not matters which we can let go or treat in any light way.

In fact, I am grateful to the Minister for the approach which the Government have taken, in so far as it goes a very long way to meeting the objections which were raised regarding the original draft. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I wonder whether he might afford me the same facility and think about what I have said. At this stage I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, and beg leave to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 2:

Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—