Sitting of 8 October 1990

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
Lord Palmer—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

The Lord Chancellor Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that before it was known that the House would be sitting, I had accepted an invitation to open the James Watt Centre, Heriot -Watt University, Edinburgh, on Friday, 12th October. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday, 12th October 1990.

London Crossrail Proposals
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government
Whether they can now make an announcement about the choice between the two proposed underground crossrail systems.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government have been considering the case for the East-West Crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney Line in the public expenditure round. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to make an announcement shortly.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very cautious reply. Does he realise that time is short if a Private Bill for either of those
2
construction schemes is to appear in the forthcoming Session? A Private Bill must be deposited by 27th November, after which there is a matter of only some eight working weeks for petitions to be lodged. Will the Minister please ensure that the urgency of the settlement of this matter is fully appreciated?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's anxieties about the preparation of a Bill to my right honourable friend.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the crossrail projects were supported in a preface by the then Secretary of State for Transport to the Central London Rail Study published on 19th January 1989? Does he also recall that the study criticised the Jubilee Line as producing the least cash benefit in terms of reducing congestion of any of the schemes? Similar comments were made by the House of Commons Transport Committee in the report which it published on 25th July this year. Why have the crossrail proposals continually been ignored up to now?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we were not in a position to take decisions on the CLRS lines when the go-ahead was given for the Jubilee Line. It is important to remember that either of the two schemes mentioned in my noble friend's Question would be very expensive. The East-West Crossrail is costed at £1.4 billion at March 1990 prices and the Chelsea-Hackney Line at £1.8 billion. Either would represent a massive additional commitment on top of the record £3.4 billion which London Transport and Network SouthEast plan to spend in the next three years.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, for the benefit of the less well-informed among us, will my noble friend say in a single sentence what are the proposed underground crossrail links?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. One is the proposed East-West Crossrail. That is a proposal for a line from Paddington eastwards towards the City. The other is an underground line from Chelsea to Hackney.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both lines are crucial to producing a transport strategy for London which will take people out of their motor cars and put them on to public transport? Is not this piecemeal approach to London transport causing chaos in the city?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, I do not agree that it is a piecemeal approach. I have already mentioned the enormous amount of investment which is going ahead. Either of the new lines would be in addition to that investment. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said only last November that because of the high cost of the lines and the likely level of disruption that would result from their construction only one of the two lines would be built at any one time.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the cost of any such new arrangements for London transport is immense, and that it might be more sensible, socially and economically, if a much more aggressive regional policy were followed in order to decentralise government and industrial activity?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with respect, that question strays from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, are the Government not aware that the disruption that would be caused by putting in those lines is far less than the disruption which is already being caused by not putting them in?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, disruption would definitely be caused by the construction of either or both of those lines whenever that happens, and it is best that they should not both be built at once.

Inflation
2.39 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much inflation to December 1990 will exceed the Chancellor's Budget forecast.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish a new forecast with his Autumn Statement.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister. We welcome him to the latest of his ministerial responsibilities. I am sure that it will be as satisfying and testing as previously. Does he agree that, with inflation now higher than it was when the Government came into office, there are two alternatives which face them: either to reduce inflation through deflating the economy with a high exchange rate and higher unemployment or to live with high inflation and face the embarrassments of devaluations in the fixed exchange mechanism in the future? Will he guide us on which of those courses the Government propose to follow?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord should even consider that this
4
Government would pursue the course of inflation. They are determined to reduce and stamp out inflation. It may disappoint the noble Lord that we shall pursue a certain course which is not necessarily either of the two that he describes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can we have the assurance that the Government will not renege on their undertaking that all benefits, including child benefit, will be re-rated in accordance with the September inflation figures?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that question goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I should be more than happy to answer the question if the noble Lord will table it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, to deal with the Question on the Order Paper, is the Minister aware that in the documents accompanying the Budget Statement the rate of inflation at the end of the year is estimated to be some 7.5 per cent? That figure was reiterated by one of his noble friends on the Front Bench only three months ago. Is he further aware that in the latest report from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee considerable doubt is cast upon the whole method of preparing the cost of living index statistics, which in the forecast provide for an increase in food prices of between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. only? Anybody who has done any shopping over the past few months knows that that is quite ridiculous. The rise in food prices has been anything between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. In those circumstances can the Minister give an assurance on a realistic basis that the figure at the end of the year will even be below the current figure of 10.6 per cent?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord is being slightly selective. The rate of inflation in the tender order prices at the moment is sub-zero per cent. With regard to house prices I do not see great rises there. I am well aware of the Public Accounts Committee's report. I am also aware that the Treasury will be responding with a minute, which I believe it would be improper for me to anticipate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the Labour Party's record on inflation when in government, is it not reassuring to find the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, now appearing to be against it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is always a great joy to see a conversion on the road to Damascus.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in the forthcoming Statement that the Minister said the Chancellor would make, will the Chancellor forecast the core rate of inflation as well as the headline rate?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was referring to the forthcoming minute, which I believe it would be improper for me to anticipate.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that inflation often seems to be built into our way of life? Is he aware that in Germany there is no tax relief on mortgages and that at the end of a month to six weeks every credit card has to be paid up to the full amount? Can we not learn something from our friends in Europe?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Statistics: Quality
2.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is being done to improve the accuracy of national statistics.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are concerned about the quality of statistics and have taken steps to make improvements. Following the Pickford review of economic statistics, the Central Statistical Office has been enlarged and reorganised and the Pickford proposals for improvements have been implemented.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for notifying us of the action being taken by the Government to put this matter right. Is he not especially concerned at the weakness of some of our basic statistics which has lasted for some time? For example, we know that massive changes are introduced to the balance of payments from time to time on the invisibles side. The statistics relating to the retail prices index have also been criticised recently. GDP figures are known to be false. In all these circumstances is it not a fact that the wrong policy decisions over a number of years must have been taken and are likely to be taken in the future? Should this matter not be considered by the Government with a good deal more urgency than at present?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, to complement the Pickford proposals and to focus on areas of greatest concern, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in May a further package of measures aimed at improving the quality of statistics on services, companies and the balance of payments.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, will the Government also consider the presentation of these statistics and the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology with regard to R&D statistics? The figure were all right. I refer to the use made of those statistics by Ministers.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to admit to your Lordships' House that I am not aware of the specific figures to which the noble Lord refers. However, I shall certainly check them.
Lord Parry: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the causes for concern over the use of statistics is that even when they are not suspect, the time lag in their production, after research has been carried out, means that they are published at a time when they conflict with what is happening on the ground? For example, with regard to tourism, conditions are reported which existed nine months earlier. It might be in the interests of that trade for such figures to be published three or four months earlier.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government feel as strongly as anyone that we must constantly be reviewing the production of our statistics.
6
Improvements are being made constantly. However, I would be the first to admit that statistics in both this and other countries have on occasion not been as satisfactory as all would wish.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that when the Government constantly review statistics it causes a great deal of concern? For instance, we have all been concerned about the almost monthly review of the unemployment statistics. Are we now to be treated to a similar review of increases in inflation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has misinterpreted the meaning of my words. I referred to reviewing the collation of statistics to improve the output of the statistics rather than a review of the statistics in the manner that he suggests.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his memoirs—which I commend to him —a former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that such is the quality of statistics that when he asked the economists in his department for a telephone number they gave him an estimate?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that on my first occasion answering Treasury Questions it is of great elucidation to have been in receipt of the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, on that point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we do not have to wait for any confidential memorandum from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject? In its bulletin published as recently as the summer, the Treasury states that there is no doubt that the quality of UK economic statistics has deteriorated over the past few years. It can say that again! Is the noble Lord also aware that in the fourth report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Services published in April, attention was drawn to a colossal error in the department's statistics with regard to an alleged improvement in the relative standard of living of the lower tenth of the population? That was corrected only following consistent pressure by the all-party committee. The figure was ultimately proved to be wholly wrong although that did not receive wide publicity at the time. Does the noble Lord agree that it is high time that we had an independent statistical commission in this country, free from all government interference?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I refer back to my original Answer. He has referred entirely to the past. In my original Answer I pointed to changes that took place as a result of the Pickford Committee and to further changes after that. Statistics are called "statistics" and not "facts" because they can occasionally be wrong.

Nuclear Power Station Policy
2.54 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy concerning the building of a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government have accepted the planning inspector's recommendation after a long inquiry that statutory consent and planning permission should be given to Hinkley Point C. But investment approval depends on the outcome of a full review of nuclear power in 1994.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the Minister read paragraph 27 of the inspector's report? I refer to this sentence:
"I also place much more weight on the disadvantages relating to the consequences of a serious accident (however unlikely or remote such an accident would be) and to the adverse effect of the development on the locality than on the other disadvantages partly because of their inherent seriousness and partly because they are not speculative and fluctuating matters but are disadvantages which would inevitably result from the construction of the plant".
In view of that, can the noble Viscount say why the Secretary of State has given his consent in principle to the building of the plant?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord quotes rather selectively from a paragraph. The inspector considered safety and the effects on health in some detail and on balance came down in favour of planning permission being given. That has been supported by my right honourable friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the project is totally opposed by all local authorities? Is it not a little odd to give planning consent so early to a proposition that necessarily depends upon investment consent being given at a much later date? Will he state when that investment consent is likely? Is it usual to give planning consent so far ahead of a possible investment consent? I believe that everyone in the area, and a large number of people in this House, hope that it never will be given.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it would be quite unreasonable for the Secretary of State simply to sit on the inspector's report for a period of four years until the nuclear review. It is quite common for many projects not to start immediately after planning permission. Finance often takes a long time to put together. The inspector was quite clear that a delay in implementation was not a ground for refusing consent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it may be true that in many cases it takes a long time for projects to get under way once planning permission has been granted. Nevertheless, is not four to five years a very long time to wait before a decision is made on whether the project will go ahead once permission has been granted? If it is simply a holding position by the Government in order to allow them to build a PWR at
8
Hinkley Point in 1994 should they so desire, will planning permission be sought for a similar PWR at Wylfa B on that basis?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the last part of the noble Lord's question is entirely another matter. However, before he made his report, the inspector had in front of him the fact that the Government had announced that they would review nuclear power in 1994. He considered that that was not a reason for not making a report, and the Secretary of State decided that it was not a reason for holding it up.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister but I am afraid that mine is not another question. The Government have stated that they will review their nuclear policy in 1994 and have applied for planning permission for a PWR at Hinkley. If in 1994 they take the decision to go ahead with PWRs is it not the case that they will need planning permission in respect of all the sites and not for only one? Therefore, that is part of the same Question.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the situation will be reviewed in 1994. Planning permission will be required for the building of any further PWRs and inquiries will follow if local councils object.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 1994 is not a magic number? It is a date subject to review. Would it not be folly to order another PWR before Sizewell B, which I visited during the Recess, has worked satisfactorily for a couple of years?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his observations. The building of Sizewell B is now ahead of schedule. The information gleaned as a result by 1994 will be put into the system so that the review can take place.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that but for the Government's privatisation programme the project may have gone ahead immediately in any event?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I do not believe that the statement is entirely true. However, the noble Lord makes his own point.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, arising from the Minister's Answer, I am aware that on balance the inspector came down in favour of the building of the plant. However, in view of the quotation which I gave, are we not entitled to expect the Secretary of State to protect the public on the basis of the evidence produced by the inspector in his report? In addition, can we not expect the Secretary of State to protect the future of the industry in view of the statement made to the inquiry by Professor Ulph, the economic assessor? He said that there cannot be a satisfactory estimate of the capital cost, and hence generating cost, of Hinkley C.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, Professor Ulph's point concerned uncertainties about the economics. In his decision letter the Secretary of State made clear the fact that the uncertainty was a disadvantage that he had to take into account. However, in itself it did not present grounds for refusing consent. It reinforces the Government's view that the economics of nuclear

9
power should be thoroughly reviewed before further major investment is made. I made that point clearly in my first Answer.

Business
3.3 p.m
Lord Denham: My Lords, it is right that I should announce formally to the House that Her Majesty the Queen will open the new Session of Parliament on Wednesday 7th November. The date of Prorogation for the present Session will be subject to the progress of business but it is expected that the House will sit into the week beginning Monday 29th October.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that Report stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during the adjournment a Motion will be taken to discharge the Order of Commitment to the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) (No. 2) Bill.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, since the Government Chief Whip is dealing with Business, may I ask him whether it is intended to hold a debate on the new environmental White Paper before the end of this Parliament or after the Queen's Speech?
Lord Denham: My Lords, it is traditional in this House that the question of what debates should take place is one for the usual channels in discussion outside the House.

Exchange Rate Mechanism: Entry of Sterling
3.4 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall make a Statement on sterling's entry into the exchange rate mechanism.
Your Lordships will know that, with the agreement of our Community partners, sterling has now entered the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System. With effect from today sterling has become a full participating member of the system.
The Government have long made it clear that sterling would enter the ERM when the time was right. We have judged that the time is now right and I should like to explain our decision and how it fits into the Government's wider economic strategy.
As the Chancellor said in his Statement on Friday, it has become increasingly clear that the Government's sustained policies of high interest rates and firm budgetary control are now reducing inflationary pressures in the economy. Monetary growth has fallen sharply to within its target range. The growth of demand has slowed. The rise in oil prices will continue to feed through for some time but the prospect is for a substantial reduction in inflation during the coming year, both in absolute terms and in relation to inflation in other European countries.
10
It is this evidence which justifies a reduction in interest rates. The Bank of England's minimum lending rate has been reduced from 15 per cent. to 14 per cent. and bank base rates have followed suit.
However, a tight monetary policy remains essential to bring inflation down. A substantial reduction in inflation is the most important of our economic policy objectives and will continue to be so. Monetary policy will therefore remain tight.
A firm exchange rate is a vital part of this policy. The decision to join the ERM has been taken to reinforce our framework of monetary discipline. As the Chancellor has made clear on many occasions, ERM membership will be no panacea for the UK economy. It is not a soft option.
Sterling now has a fixed central rate against each of the other ERM currencies. The central rate against the ecu is £0·696904 which translates to a central rate against the deutschmark of 2·95, slightly above the market level when the decision to enter was announced on Friday. Sterling is now trading in the upper part of its band.
Sterling is able to move by a maximum of 6 per cent. above or below the central rates. Our choice of the wider 6 per cent. margins will allow sterling to settle into the system and it follows the precedents of Italy and Spain.
The decision has only minor agri-monetary consequences which will be considered by the appropriate committee of the Community on Wednesday. Further details will be made available after that.
A broadly stable exchange rate with our main European trading partners will be of great help to both British businesses and ordinary people. ERM membership will make the United Kingdom an even more attractive prospect for companies overseas making decisions on where to locate their factories and offices. This inward investment will continue to be good for employment and growth. It is also an important consideration for inverstors and institutions, both here and abroad, deciding whether to hold their funds in sterling or other currencies.
ERM membership will also provide an important signal to British companies that they must contain their costs. For they can now be even more certain than before that if they allow their wage and other costs to go up too fast, they are not going to stay competitive as a result of a weaker pound. This is the key message of ERM membership for those engaged in pay bargaining this autumn and subsequently.
Companies and employees must take this message on board. If they do, then I am sure that ERM membership will strengthen their prospects of success as we approach 1992 and the single market. If they respond positively by strictly limiting increases in pay and other costs, this will help to bring down inflation more speedily, improve our competitiveness and sustain employment. Should they fail to respond positively, there is no doubt that the cost of reducing inflation would be much heavier, particularly in terms of unemployment.

11
Membership of the ERM should also remove any lingering doubts about our approach to negotiations on economic and monetary union. We shall play a full and positive part in these negotiations which begin at the Intergovernmental Conference in December. We shall continue to argue against the Delors plans for a single currency and for the proposals that the Chancellor first set out in June for an evolutionary and market-based approach, centred on the creation of a new European Monetary Fund and a new common currency, the "hard ecu". These proposals have already attracted a good deal of interest, and we shall aim to build on that position.
To sum up, the Government believe that sterling's membership of the ERM will reinforce the counter-inflation policies already in place and will help to provide a good framework for a resumption of soundly-based and non-inflationary growth.
3.9 p.m
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will wish to thank the Minister for making the Statement. I wish to add to the remarks that have already fallen from the lips of my noble friend Lord Donoughue by offering our congratulations to the Minister on leading for the Treasury in respect of matters such as this. We hope that he will have a series of very happy landings inside or outside the ERM.
We welcome wholeheartedly the cut in interest rates to which the noble Lord has referred. We should have preferred a greater cut in interest rates. High interest rates have inflicted and continue to inflict terrible damage on British industry and business and have been a crippling burden on home buyers. The House will be aware that the Statement refers to the minimum lending rate being reduced. Perhaps the noble Lord is well aware, as I am sure are your Lordships, that in practice that means that until now a very large number of businesses and companies have been paying 17 or 18 per cent. for the facilities granted to them; that is now reduced to a range of 16 or 17 per cent. That is still a very onerous burden indeed and it needs to be relieved with the utmost speed. We on these Benches have repeatedly pressed for that relief over the past year.
In the current circumstances joining the exchange rate mechanism was quite inevitable, because there has been such a long period of dithering within the Government. There has been so much uncertainty, not only in the City but in industry and indeed throughout the population. There have been the to-ings and fro-ings of Sir Alan Walters—the friend of the family— the disagreements between the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister and, really, the country as a whole had not known in which direction the Government had decided to go. In fact it has been claimed as a virtue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has—I quote the term which has been used—"engaged in masterly inactivity". That has been claimed as a virtue by the party opposite. I was always taught, both in the army and in business, that any decision is better than no decision. At last we have had a decision, which is good.
12
At the same time we are entitled to ask what has happened to the Madrid conditions laid down by the Prime Minister and insisted upon for so long by her. What has happened to the condition that UK inflation should converge on the European mean? At present inflation is running higher than 10.6 per cent. It will probably be announced at the end of the week or very shortly that inflation is running somewhere between 10.6 and 11 per cent. compared with the European average among those countries already in the ERM of some 3.9 per cent. What has happened to the Madrid conditions? What has happened to the will and iron determination that that particular condition should be complied with?
In company with your Lordships I listened and watched very carefully the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his famous interview with Mr. Brian Walden on Sunday. I have taped a record of that. I have had the opportunity also of reading his article in the Sunday Express. No reason is given for the abandonment of that condition, except that Mr. Major said that we can no longer take the historic figures for the rate of inflation. What is "historic"? I suppose that since 10.6 per cent. is now a fortnight old it is therefore historic. He did not say that there was any regard to "actual".
In fact the entire decision was not taken on that basis at all. Joining at this time and in this way is the action of a cornered government, a government surrounded by the effects of their own economic incompetence. That is the reason, together with the proximity of the Conservative Party conference. Last week there was gloom and the prospect of the Conservatives having very little to say at their forthcoming conference. Now there has been a shot in the arm, however temporary that may be. Quite clearly the timing of the decision to enter on Friday last was dictated by pure political expediency and nobody in their right mind in the country has any illusions about that.
Dealing with other parts of the Statement, I observe that the noble Lord said that sterling is now trading in the upper part of its band. We entered at 2.95. According to my own bankers about half an hour ago, the banks are buying at 2.97 and selling at 3.16. We are getting very near to the top.
We note the Government's admonition to British industry about containing its costs. We note also the implicit accusations as regards British industry that so far it has not been doing its best to contain them. However, the Government have not taken into account the effect upon British industry, particularly the export industry, of the high exchange rates. I venture to suggest that the grossly inflated exchange rates at which we shall now be exchanging pounds for deutschmarks or for dollars has a far greater effect than any effective restraining of costs within individual factories or enterprises. The Government still have to address that problem.
In addition to making further inroads upon our efforts to exports goods, it will make imports cheaper. Over these months of grossly inflated exchange rates, imports have already been effectively subsidised by

13
our high rates of exchange. That will continue. There will be a continued incursion into the British market over the next few months and, indeed, years—a process which has been in operation ever since this Government have been in office. There has been a progressive erosion of our trading effort and a deterioration in our balance of payments.
For a while the Government may exist in what we believe, will be a quite temporary state of euphoria. The chickens will come home to roost a long time before many noble Lords opposite anticipate that they will. In the meantime, I have only one question to ask the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bruce of Donington: And for the convenience of the House I gave him notice of it in advance. I ask for an unequivocal assurance by Her Majesty's Government that the step of entering the ERM is merely a completion of the process of entering the EMS in 1978 and that it does not commit us in any way to economic and monetary union. We should like an unequivocal answer to that question.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I shall be brief. I should like to start by saying that we from these Benches whole-heartedly welcome the step which the Government have taken to join the exchange rate mechanism. It is probably a subject about which we in this Chamber have asked more questions than any other. I may say that I had a few more in reserve which I am happy now to set on one side.
We couple our whole-hearted welcome of the step taken, with a regret that we did not join earlier. We feel that in much the same way as was expressed in the Financial Times this morning by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated that 1985 and any year after that would have been a far more effective time to join the exchange rate mechanism, and that our inflation rate, in his opinion, would now have been lower.
That having been said, at least we have taken the step to join. As has been made clear in the Statement and as was made clear by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in a television interview yesterday, this step is not regarded as a panacea for our problems. It means that our Government will not now be able to rely exclusively on the interest rate weapon to deal with the problem of inflation, because of the impact that changes in interest rates could have on the value of the currency in relation to the band within which we have to live.
My first question to the noble Lord therefore concerns what other measures the Government now contemplate using to deal with the continuing problem of inflation. For example, if the recent cut in interest rates and possible further cuts lead to a growth, a rebirth in credit, would they then seek directly to introduce controls on credit which so far they have avoided?
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to it, I too would like to turn to the question of economic and monetary union. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and indeed the House, that as a country we are
14
committed to the objective of the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. I am referring to the Single European Act of July 1987. Can the noble Lord tell me whether the Government still keep to that very firm commitment in the Treaty? If they do, can we take it that the interesting proposal put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the hard ecu can be taken as an alternative route to ultimate economic and monetary union rather than as a way of holding up its realisation? We should be reassured on these points because there seems to be some difference of emphasis in remarks recently made by the Prime Minister on the one hand—who seemed to hold that in no circumstances would we move towards a single currency or a single European bank —and on the other hand the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in the interview yesterday to which I referred, made clear that his attitude was one of greater flexibility. Is there a single policy on the part of the Government or are there two policies? If there is a single policy, the House will be interested to know which it is.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall attempt to be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised the point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, regarding the Government's intentions. The Government's intentions could not be more clearly stated than by the fact of our having gone into the ERM.
I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the Government believe that there is, between partners in Europe, the opportunity for discussion. That is represented by the inter-governmental conference that commences in December. It would be foolish for me to predict the outcome of those discussions and the choices that will lie before those in Europe within the ERM, but the commitment is there. The commitment is also there in the Treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out.
I must rebut two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. First, he accused the Government of dithering in their timing. The Government have always said that they would choose the best time to go in and would do so when that time came. The time is right. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, believes that the advent of the Conservative Party conference provided the timing. There is no more reason to believe that than that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the advice given to him on Monday in Blackpool. It is not true.
As everyone who has studied the ERM will confirm, in some ways it is a tough regime. It is a decision taken by a confident government. I promise that in the days when it is remembered who decided to go into the ERM, it will be said that it was a Conservative Government that did so.
3.36 p.m.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Benches!
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether he is old enough to

15
remember a report made to your Lordships' House by a Committee of your Lordships of which I had the honour to be chairman seven years ago? It recommended the immediate joining of the ERM. Would he not agree that if earlier opportunities to join that system had been taken we should not be joining it in the unfortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves today, and that those circumstances could have been avoided by the disciplines of belonging to the system?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's connection with the report and that his knowledge of these matters is considerably greater than mine. I also point out that the decision was eventually taken in a positive way and, I believe, in a beneficial way for the future.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the House as a whole is grateful to him for making the Statement on this important matter and for making it, if he will allow me to say so, with such force and clarity? Is my noble friend also aware that many people outside—and I believe inside —your Lordships' House approve of the 6 per cent. margin involved in that decision? Although several of the major countries in Europe have a lower margin, 2 per cent., is my noble friend aware that it seems prudent, at any rate at this stage, to give us this degree of flexibility?
Is he also aware of the fact that the strong pound which was somewhat criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has the enormous advantage of enabling us to import the raw materials of our industry at a considerably cheaper rate than would otherwise have been the case, and that there is a great deal to be said—far more than has been said so far—for maintaining a strong pound? Is he aware that a weak pound would expose the Government to perhaps proper criticism? The fact that this decision is taken now—at what seems to me to be a very well-judged time—will enable the pound to be maintained as a strong currency for a considerable time.
Will my noble friend make clear that although the reduction in the interest rates at home of only 1 per cent., to 14 per cent., is small, it is a cautious first step and that the Government could not rule out further substantial reductions which would be of the greatest assistance both to industry and to the consumer?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of my noble friend. I should like to draw to the attention of your Lordships one salient point that he made. A strong currency is no bad thing. It is worth remembering that the West German economy has not suffered by reason of having a strong currency. My noble friend is also correct to make the other points that he did regarding the future. I am grateful for all that he said.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will accept that I, with a certain proprietary interest in the matter, gratefully welcome the decision. When hesitation has become a way of life
16
for 11½ years it is better to bring it to an end than to pursue arguments regarding exactly what is the best moment. Nevertheless, will the Minister also accept that the view that this week is a uniquely favourable one, as opposed to most of the 600 weeks which have gone by since the inauguration of the EMS since 1979, is a view that defies rational economic analysis? That is particularly so when, during this decade and a little more, we have suffered unnecessarily violent sterling fluctuations, unnecessarily high interest rates and a manifest diminution of influence in Europe as a result of our teetering on the brink.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I remarked to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, when I saw him earlier today, my first reading before coming to the House today was his own article which appeared yesterday in the Independent on Sunday. I felt that that put me in a better position to appreciate the subject, and I am grateful for that.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I unreservedly welcome the Government's decision at last to join the exchange rate mechanism? I equally welcome the change in the condition laid down in Madrid to that of a prospective rate of inflation. However, will he accept that if the expectations about the prospective rate of inflation are not realised, we shall be heading for very serious economic conditions? Therefore, will he give the House an indication of the Treasury view on when we can expect to meet the original Madrid condition that our inflation rate should be that of the average in the Common Market?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, engages in that attractive practice of hoping that there is a fixed answer to a fixed point on a future timescale and on which the Government are willing to tie their neck and arms. However, I must counter the first point made by the noble Lord concerning Madrid. The conditions of Madrid mostly have been met in regard to the free movement of capital, the single market, competition policy and the liberalisation of financial services. I believe that it is generally accepted when one speaks to many businesses across many fronts that there has been a reduction in the volume of business. As I pointed out earlier, there has been a reduction in inflation of a substantial nature in various areas, be it on new construction orders, housing costs, motor car sales—the list goes on. Those figures give the Government confidence that inflation is coming down.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who have represented British electors in another assembly on the Continent, and those who still do, warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on having decided to enter the ERM? Is the Minister further aware that all those companies trading with the Community—and our export markets consist of eight of the nine top countries in the Community—will warmly welcome the possibility of having non-volatile sterling in relation to the firms with whom they trade on the Continent?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her remarks. She is right to draw to the

17
attention of your Lordships the fact that among the many advantages the ERM will provide stability and certainty for British exporting companies in Europe.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not last Friday's decision to enter the exchange rate mechanism spell a defeat for the Prime Minister and also a defeat for the philosophy of market forces? Will the Minister tell the House whether the entry decision will be taken by other European states as an indication that the British Government will now agree to Stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union? If interest rates are reduced quickly, will he also say how demand in the economy is to be contained and how unemployment levels will not rise? Will the Minister further state whether public expenditure projections will be in any way affected by our decision to join the ERM?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as regards the demands and conditions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to be perfectly frank he would be better off asking Thomas More. With regard to the further stages of the EMU, I made it quite clear in making the Statement that alternatives lie ahead and that the first discussion of those will be at the intergovernmental conference in December. Therefore, the position is not cast in stone; and I cannot give him a reply which is hand-chiselled into timber.
Lord Jay: My Lords, as both the fixing of the gold parity of sterling in 1925 and adherence to the Bretton Woods system in 1946 required the approval of Parliament, do the Government propose to ask Parliament to approve this comparable decision?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on the basis of the reception of the Government's decision over a very wide front, I believe that there is broad acceptance of it. However, the fact that we intended to enter the ERM at a suitable time was made clear by the Chancellor of the Exchequer long before the Summer Recess.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will take the House a stage further and say what policies the Government intend to introduce to take advantage of the new situation created by our membership of the ERM. Further, following on what was said by the noble Lords, Lord O'Brien and Lord Ezra, is the Minister aware that the country will take the view that the Government committed a grave error of judgment in not taking this step seven, or even five, years ago? Does the Minister agree with the view expressed today—and in the past few days—by his right honourable friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Nigel Lawson, that this country could have been saved a great deal of suffering had the Prime Minister and the Government accepted his advice five years ago?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord's party had been in power as recently as 1985 there would have been no possibility of this country joining the ERM in any circumstances. The previous Labour Administration had the opportunity to take this country into the ERM before 1979.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before we complete questions on the Statement, perhaps the Minister can tell me who this fellow Thomas More is of whom I should ask questions rather than him.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, he wrote a book called Utopia.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, he is not a Member of this House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, there is one question originally put by my noble friend Lord Bruce, and repeated by others, that the Minister has not answered. Why is it, if it is not for the convenience of the Government at the Tory Party conference, that the condition in the Madrid statement of reducing our inflation rate to a figure approaching the average for our Community partners has been missed out? The Minister has repeatedly talked about the inflation rate for different sectors being reduced; but that, surely, is just a cop-out. The inflation rate for the country is 10.6 per cent. How can that be equated with the statement made at Madrid that we would not join the ERM until our inflation rate had fallen to approximately that of our European partners?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is suggesting that rather than showing ability in anticipation, we should await reaction and not become a member of the ERM. That is the position on which he stands at the moment. The Chancellor believes that inflation is falling substantially and in line with what we required at Madrid, as I have said on a number of occasions.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House what was the attitude of the Labour Party when in power and had the opportunity to join the ERM?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe I am correct in saying that the Labour Government were opposed to joining.

Broadcasting Bill
3.39 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 5,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 21,

Clauses 6 to 12,

Clause 22,

Schedule 3,

clauses 23 to 55,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 56 to 66,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 67 to 82,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 83 to 126,

19

Schedule 7,

Clause 127,

Schedule 8,

Clause 128,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 129 to 133,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 134 to 141,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 142 to 150,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 151 to 161,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 162 to 170,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 171 to 175,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 176 to 178,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 179 to 181,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 182 to 198,

Schedules 18 and 19,

Clause 199. —[Earl Ferrers.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Earl resumes his seat this may be an appropriate moment to ask him why, on this first day of the sitting of Parliament after the long Recess, television is not present? A number of noble Lords have drawn my attention to this matter. Perhaps the noble Earl can help us.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I anticipated many questions but not that one. I cannot tell the noble Lord what the answer is.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, now that television has gained admission to the House of Commons, is it not correct to say that the electronic media no longer thinks that this House counts?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are getting slightly off beam. There is no Question before the House. Though this is a fascinating subject I think we are out of order.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.41 p.m.
Report received.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Carbon Dioxide emissions
—(1) Any regulations made under this Part in respect of limits on emissions of carbon dioxide shall have the purpose of securing levels of total annual emissions by 31st December 2000 not greater than the levels of such emissions as measured in 1990 in the United Kingdom.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement as to the date before 3Ist December 2000 at which he expects actual reductions in total emission levels in any calendar year to commence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in welcoming noble Lords back to proceedings on the
20
Environmental Protection Bill, I remind the House that a very considerable part of our proceedings in Committee were conducted to the refrain, "Wait for the White Paper" or wait until we know the Government's intentions about the broader environmental issues which were and are so inadequately treated in the Bill.
I say straightaway that I welcome the White Paper. I welcome it from an aesthetic point of view. However, as the House will expect, I welcome it less from a political point of view. The White Paper is very beautiful. It is very heavy. It sits on a well-constructed coffee table with considerable grace. It has some very beautiful pictures culled from many of the environmental pressure groups and societies which have expressed such strong opposition to the contents of the White Paper since seeing its terms.
When we considered this matter in Committee we were in danger of our deliberations being overtaken by events. What has happened is that our deliberations have been overtaken by a non-event. In almost every single respect in which we looked for decision and action and a lead from the Government in a paper on environmental protection, our expectations have been disappointed. I remind the House that the White Paper on environmental protection was produced fully two years after the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society in which she announced her conversion to green politics.
It will not surprise your Lordships to learn that the purpose of a very considerable number of amendments tabled by the Opposition is an attempt to make the White Paper work. It is the purpose of these amendments to make the intentions and the noble statements contained in the White Paper actually stick. The amendments are intended to put some force behind the provisions. It is essential to do that not because it is a good political ploy to get in first before the Government but because they have made it clear that they are not going to get in at all.
We read in this morning's newspapers that there will be some environmental legislation from the department in the next Session. I do not know whether that is true, but I certainly welcome the idea that there will be legislation in the next Session to improve the siting and appearance of farm buildings and the restoration of old mineral workings. That is what we understand is to be added, from a green point of view, to the department's legislative programme in the next Session.
However, it can hardly be said that that is an effective response to the challenges which the Government recognise in their White Paper. In what is bound to be the Government's last full Session of this Parliament and what may well be its last Session in any event, it can hardly be said that they are doing anything at all to fulfil the objectives of the protection of the national, local and global environment which were so admirably set forth by the Prime Minister in her speech two years ago.
The time has come not to take refuge in future statements from Government but to seek to ensure

21
that the objectives that we all share for the protection and enhancement of the environment, insofar as they reflect the responsibilities of Government, feature in the legislation, action and resources provided to those who have to carry out that environmental protection and improvement. That is the purpose of the series of amendments on which we embark this afternoon.
The first amendment is perhaps the most important in global terms as it concerns all the threats to the environment which face us. I refer to emissions of carbon dioxide. It is common ground (is it not?) that carbon dioxide emissions account for approximately 50 per cent. of all causes of global warming and the greenhouse effect. Yet, when we look at the White Paper and the very clear description of the horrors which will affect the globe if no action is taken to deal with the greenhouse effect, we find that all of the suggestions that have been made for dealing with that and, in particular, emissions of carbon dioxide, are not in the text of the White Paper at all. They have been relegated to Annexe C of the White Paper. All the proposals so bravely put forward by Professor David Pearce a year ago are not in the Government's proposals. They are referred to almost in passing in Annexe C. What has happened to carbon taxes? What has happened to tradeable permits and commitments to more energy efficient uses of transport, particularly the encouragement of public transport? What has happened to the implementation of land use planning to encourage energy conservation? None of these issues appears in the White Paper or in the Bill.
I believe that the minimum obligation that your Lordships have is to make a serious attempt to make the Bill reflect the Government's admirable statements of principle and to reflect them in a way which they clearly have no intention of doing either in this Bill or in their subsequent legislative programme. In practical terms, when discussing carbon dioxide emissions in this amendment, we are proposing that emissions permitted under regulations to be laid down by the Secretary of State shall have the purpose of securing levels of total annual emissions by 31st December 2000 not greater than the levels of such emissions as measured in 1990. The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement as to how he expects this reduction to be achieved and the timetable for it.
The purpose of Part I of the Bill is to introduce a system of integrated pollution control. Since the Bill was considered in Committee it has been extremely disappointing to learn that the introduction of integrated pollution control is not even to start until 1992 and that the timescale for its introduction is going to be phased until 1996. By that year we shall be a good way towards the Government's own targets in connection with the reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide and other dangerous gases. The timescale now offered to the House is different to the one we were offered in Committee. It is totally inadequate for the purposes which the Government themselves acknowledge in their own White Paper. The whole of the integrated pollution control procedures are designed to deal with industrial carbon dioxide emissions. However, it is well known that such emissions account
22
for only 30 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. The Bill is addressing only one part of the problem which is before this country and the world.
We have to include realistic measures. We have to include measures which are realistic not only in terms of their achievement—there is a good deal of agreement on that—but also in terms of the effect they will have on global warming. It is no use relying on others—the European Community, the United Nations or any other organisation—to make these provisions for us. It is no use waiting until others make the formulations. In terms of emissions, we are among the countries which cause most damage in the world we are certainly one of the most damaging countries in the European Community. As such, we have a responsibility to take a lead. What is proposed in the amendment is that we should take a lead by giving some teeth to the Bill and by giving teeth to this country's environmental programme. At the moment, neither has any teeth. I beg to move.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I support the amendment which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It sets out to limit the emission of CO2, by the year 2000 rather than by the Government's stated target in the White Paper of 2005. It is a modest amendment which I hope will be accepted as a step in the right direction.
This issue deals with one of the fundamentals of the environmental debate. I refer to the release of CO2, into the atmosphere and the resultant environmental damage and global warming. It is a global problem. Carbon dioxide emissions are rising steeply, exacerbated by increasing energy use, the industrialisation of the developing world and the accelerating pace of deforestation. A real cut in global emissions must be our target. We in the developed world, where 80 per cent. of the greenhouse gases arise, have a special responsibility. Carbon dioxide emissions, the White Paper suggests, are growing at a rate of 0.4 per cent. each year, with all that that entails by way of global warming. My party recommends a target for reduction to a global ceiling of 300 billion tonnes by 2100.
In the section of the White Paper entitled "Action" comes this statement:
"The Government believes that this generation has a duty to act to meet the threat of global warming".
We all no doubt welcome that. However, the White Paper goes on to say:
"Britain has proposed that the best way to act on global warming is through an international framework convention setting a broad strategy".
International action is vital, as are international targets for emission reductions, but British action should not be dependent on this. The White Paper states that, if other countries take similar action, Britain is prepared to reduce CO2, emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2005. That stipulation illustrates the Government's low level of commitment to this problem.
The White Paper goes on to state:
"Unilateral action by Britain would do little to influence global warming".

23
It would, however, establish the principle that Britain takes the matter very seriously and believes not just in words and sentiments but also in action. We strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I should like to refer, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh has done, to the White Paper. I was perhaps privileged—and certainly intrigued—to debate sections of the White Paper with the Secretary of State just last week. He is obviously a very uncomfortable man. I sympathise very deeply with him because the publication of the White Paper is a defeat for the Secretary of State on virtually every factor that he has included in it. He has been defeated by his Cabinet colleagues. At the meeting the Secretary of State referred to us living in a plural society. The answer to that is that he lives in a plural government and a plural party. He has been defeated by the Prime Minister. Once again the Prime Minister spoke with one voice two years ago but when it came to action she shied away and apparently lost interest. Now that she has gathered the trophies, she has lost interest in the practicality of this country, and her government in this country, giving a lead.
The issue contained in the amendment is one of the signs of the process that has been taking place over the past two years. It is a modest amendment. It does not go so far as a number of our partners in the European Community have gone. I should like the Minister who is to reply to the debate, and whom I welcome to the Front Bench in her new guise, to answer two questions. Why cannot the British Government show as clear and as radical a recognition of the problem of carbon dioxide emissions and its relation to global warming as other countries in Europe? Carbon dioxide is not simply emitted into the atmosphere today but stays there a very long time. The carbon dioxide emitted in the year 1990 will be there in the middle of the next century and will have its effect. There will be a cumulative effect between now and then, just as there has been over the past century. This has been caused largely by the operations of the industrialised community. Is it not therefore the case that, on all the showing of the major scientists in the world who have now virtually agreed about global warming, it is necessary to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide from their 1990 height rather than to stabilise them, as the Government propose to do, in 15 years' time? Is it not the case that, with emissions even at the present level, still less at the level projected by the Minister of Transport and by the Prime Minister in her "great car" economy, global warming will continue at an exponential rate, with all the consequences which have been vividly outlined by the major scientists of the world?
I should like the Minister to answer those two questions. I hope that in the light of what has been said she will be prepared to accept this modest amendment, which does not go so far as what has been stated by the major scientists of the world as essential if global warming is even to be slowed down.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in rising to support the amendment so ably put before us it is necessary for me to state that, while I am chairman of the Tidy Britain group and am anxiously involved in a number of other environmental organisations, what I have to say does not necessarily represent that group, although it probably does. I enthusiastically support the amendment because I believe it is necessary for the Government at this early stage to indicate now that they are prepared to listen to voices that place greater importance on certain aspects of what they propose than they seem to do themselves.
My attitude to the White Paper is that, like many good and worthy documents, its analysis and diagnosis are excellent. It is to be welcomed for the fact that it places firmly on the national agenda matters that concern us all. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh has indicated, it does so in a manner that is bright and attractive and is therefore more likely to be read. Those of us who have accepted the discipline of reading the document over the past week—that is, since we first had access to copies of it—will have been impressed by their mental effort in reading 700 pages. I am quite certain that others will have taken the short cut offered by the package which included a crib sheet, whereby it would be possible for people to be present and to debate here in the House on the basis of the White Paper as though they were in fact discussing that document. We are not doing so; but we shall have that opportunity and we shall be able to move from the diagnosis to the recommendations and finally to the cure.
I wish to state that, while I enthusiastically commend the diagnosis, I must say that there is a suspicion that the will to spend on the necessary cure is not as strong as that regarding the diagnosis of the ailments. It gives the impression that, while the Minister's intention may have been to proceed immediately from recognising the ills to curing them, he was met along the way by a Treasury refusal to fund or find the means of funding some of the cures which are immediately necessary.
Noble Lords will remember that it was a Welshman —namely, Lloyd George, the last Liberal Prime Minister and ultimately a Member of this House as the Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor—who said that he once sat looking at a shiver moving up and down the Treasury Benches seeking a spine up which to travel. It is quite often the case that governments have intentions which are totally defeated by the Treasury's hold on the purse strings.
Therefore, it would be a good indication from this House if, in the various amendments which are brought forward, we all honestly recognise that they are necessary and if, just occasionally, the Government said, "We shall accept this amendment because we believe that it will show that our resolve as a government is stronger perhaps than the Treasury's resolve to fund it". I support the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Parry, I believe that this debate and many others must be seen against the backcloth of the publication of the glossy White Paper. I wholly agreed with the editorial contained in the Financial Times of 26th September, part of which said:
"It is therefore hardly surprising that the result is a 296-page illustrated brochure whose saving grace is that it is printed on recycled paper, and whose principal virtue is that it is comprehensive. It dwells mainly on proposals previously enacted or announced; when it comes to plans for the future the best that can be said is that it is a compendium of muted declarations of hesitant intent. Apart from an important new Bill on planning, there is no new legislation in it. In advance of the conclusion of the current round of departmental negotiations on public spending there can be no new money in it. WI ere there are fresh policies, such as for tests of vehicle emissions, these are new to Britain, but not to many comparable countries".
I think that those words need to be taken into account in the debates that we shall have, not simply in relation to this Bill but also in relation to many environmental debates over the course of the next year. The amendment is of fundamental importance because in a sense it tests the credibility of the Government's proposals. I suggest, as did my noble friend Lord McIntosh, that in that test the Government fail immediately.
Let us consider one or two reasons for that situation. First, there is the whole question of conditionality as regards the Government performing their obligations to stabilise emission levels of carbon dioxide at 1990 volumes by the year 2005. I suggest that that is wholly inadequate. However, what is the meaning of this condition which is imported? We are told that other countries have to agree to adopt these measures. But which are these other countries? Does it concern one other country, or are there two of them? Further, what are the criteria by which the Government will make their judgment upon such matters in relation to the performance by other countries? Why should we set this proviso? Why should we not adopt that which eight other European countries have adopted, including Germany, France and Sweden? If these countries can do it, why can we not do so? In my view that is a question of fundamental importance which the Minister should answer, especially against a background of constant obfuscation on the part of the Government over many years to hold up legislation in the European Community about this and, indeed, many other issues.
Why is it that the Government do not indicate very clearly, as they should, when setting a target, how they intend to go about meeting that target? The White Paper is full of pleas and arguments about urging industry to perform; but it is very short on the wherewithal. There is no target in the White Paper for reducing energy. There are no minimum standards for energy efficiency as regards household appliances. There are no effective policies to switch subsidy from roads to public transport.
I turn now to the much heralded appointment of Professor Pearce. I believe that it was an excellent
26
appointment. I also believe that the ideas he adumbrated were first-class. Of course, one may have certain qualifications about them but, overall, that was the view I took about them. What has happened to him? He has almost disappeared from sight. He has done so because Mr. Patten has lost battle after battle in the Cabinet against those formidable foes, Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Wakeham. Against that background we are told that we should take comfort in the fact that this Committee of Ministers is there assembled in all its array and is determined to ensure that environmental progress is made in each of the departments. I suspect that those Ministers are there more as watchdogs than anything else they are watchdogs to ensure that Mr. Patten does not make too much progress in conflict with their own designs, some of which are completely contradictory to the purpose of achieving a good environment.
In my view the Minister ought to reply to the questions which have been posed by my noble friends and myself. I hope that she will be able to do so. I hope that her brief will permit her to do so. I say that because these are vital issues which test the credit and credibility of the Government.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, these amendments are very relevant at this particular time because, as we know, only this weekend the Thames Barrier was raised to protect some parts of the upper reaches of the Thames from possible flooding. There were very high tides this weekend. We know what happened in North Wales earlier this year and how those people have still not recovered from the disaster which hit them. We also know that East Anglia is equally vulnerable.
The year 2000 appears as a target for the Energy Efficiency Office to save fuel by the use of heat and power. That is the target set by the Government. Therefore, why can we not have the same consideration in respect of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the main offender; indeed, over 50 per cent. of global warming arises from the emission of carbon dioxide. There is one aspect of the matter upon which I think every expert is convinced; that is, that if we do not tackle this problem now, then we are in for real trouble in the years ahead. That trouble may be much closer than many people realise.
Our outgoing ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell, who I believe may have had some hand in writing the Prime Minister's speech a few years ago, is one of those people who is totally and utterly convinced on the matter. Indeed, he was most convincing in this respect when he appeared on television some time ago. I very much hope that the Government will at least listen on this occasion and that they will accept the amendment proposed.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before we leave the point I feel that a few words must be said from these Benches. Amendment No. 1 could be achieved if we were to restrict the number of cars on the roads and the amount of power we were allowed to use in our houses. That is not something that should be done now by the Government. On those grounds, I cannot support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, opened with comments about the White Paper. It is important to note that it is the first and most comprehensive document of its kind issued by any government. It is important to recognise its achievements. It covers the whole of our environment and sets out clear principles. It has been generally welcomed. It states clear priorities and a whole range of measures, of which the noble Lord was kind enough to mention just two.
What about the commitment to improve our air quality with more reliance on standards and substantial expenditure; for example, the £28 billion of investment in water and £6 billion investment in new power plant? The White Paper establishes for the first time a firm base for further action, especially the strong system for considering the environment by the whole of government. As is well known, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will chair the committee, which will include a senior minister from every department, four of them of Cabinet rank, and which will have a commitment to produce regular reports.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the White Paper as a glossy document. The one thing it is not, is a glossy document. No one can dispute that the Government take seriously the issue of climate change. Indeed, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spoke at the United Nations General Assembly last year, the theme of her speech was a call on all nations to play their part in a global response to this global problem. Last May, at the opening of the new Hadley Centre for Climate Research, my right honourable friend announced that, provided others are ready to take their full share, the United Kingdom is prepared to set itself the demanding target of returning our emissions of carbon dioxide to their 1990 levels by 2005. Taken together with the agreement in the Montreal Protocol to phase out the use of CFCs, and other actions on greenhouse gas emissions, we expect that that would reduce the global warming potential of the UK's emissions by 20 per cent. in 2005 compared to 1990 levels. It is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned that the emissions are growing by 0.4 per cent., but the figure includes taking that into account as well as returning to the 1990 level.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is similar to others which were debated at earlier stages of this Bill both here and in another place. As I have explained, the Government's position is clear. We recognise that, despite the uncertainties in our understanding of the science of climate change which remain, it is right that all nations should begin to take actions now which are justified for the other benefits they will bring. The aims we have set ourselves are the result of careful analysis which seeks to balance our environmental concerns with an appreciation of what is possible and realistic, and with the need to maintain the economic development which pays for environmental protection. The target of stabilizing
28
CO2 emissions at present levels by 2000 would impose severe costs on the economy and individuals through the higher energy prices which would be needed, to say nothing of its impact on the coal industry. The Liberal Democrats' reported targets of a 30 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2005 and a 75 per cent. reduction by 2050 could be met only through a massive expansion of nuclear power and severe restrictions on the use of private cars.
We have set out in more detail in the White Paper on the environment measures which will contribute towards the achievement of that target. They are too numerous to list, but cover fields such as energy efficiency, the promotion of renewable energy sources, and initiatives in the European Community to promote consumer labelling for electrical appliances and improve the fuel consumption of vehicles. In short, we have accompanied our target with a clear statement of the initial measures necessary to achieve it.
Much is sometimes made of the supposed differences between our commitment and the targets announced by some other countries in the European Community. In truth, they are often what are called "aspirational targets"; they are not firm commitments, nor are they supported by a proper analysis of the measures needed to meet them. We reduce greenhouse gas emissions not by announcing a target, however ambitious, but by following through to ratification by parliaments and the implementation of policies which will achieve real action.
Much more important in the long run is that we promote agreement among all countries to join the international response to the problem of climate change. The UK produces some 3 per cent. of global CO2 emissions, the European Community only 15 per cent. We have consistently advocated the negotiation of an international convention on climate change encompassing all countries, which could be followed by protocols containing specific commitments in areas such as greenhouse gas emissions and forestry. That is the model which proved so successful in reaching agreement to phase out the production and consumption of CFCs through the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol. I am delighted that such good progress is being made in preparing for those negotiations and we expect that the first full session will begin in Washington in February next year. We, along with many others, are committed to achieving agreement on a convention by the time of the United Nations conference on environment and development in Brazil in 1992. It is a tough schedule but it can be met if all countries play their part.
The United Kingdom has played a leading role in the scientific research on climate change, and in the promotion of an international convention; we shall continue to contribute actively to that work in the future while pursuing measures at home which will help to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases. In all our policies we shall continue to be guided by sound science, sound economics and the belief that the world must act together effectively to tackle climate change.

29
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about a start date for integrated pollution control. Implementation will begin on 1st April 1991, from when all new and substantial modifications to scheduled processes will require an IPC authorisation, as will all large combustion plant.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, what the conditionality clause means, how many countries are involved and which other European nations we are talking about. Global climate change is a global problem. To tackle it effectively requires the co-operation and co-operative action of all countries. International agreement can and must be reached, beginning with a framework convention on climate change by the time of the 1992 United Nations conference on environment and development. The United Kingdom will of course be making a contribution to its conclusions.
There has been much cynical comment on the White Paper. It is important to say that the White Paper of course does not include the minutiae of policies and legislation that will need to flow from it. It is a dynamic and living document from which will flow the measures which will implement and be processed to achieve the objectives. I hope that the noble Lord will continue to say positive things about the White Paper, which was welcomed. It must be followed by real action and it is our view that we must be international in our efforts to achieve some of the objectives of reducing emissions and, eventually, greenhouse gases.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she would develop further the argument on conditionality. Are the Government taking the stance that they would be under no obligation to meet even the 2005 deadline if one, two or three other major countries showed no application of a similar kind? Under those circumstance; will the Government contract out of their obligation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no question of the Government contracting out of their obligations to play their part in achieving those objectives; but the Government have made it clear from the outset that the objectives will be achieved only if they are tackled globally. We shall continue our efforts globally and shall also play our part as a nation.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits clown a second time, will she answer my second question? Does she recognise that unless carbon dioxide emissions are cut below the 1990 level, global warming will inevitably continue at an exponential rate?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that global warming will continue to be a problem. What we have done as a country, in addition to trying to make sure that there is a global response to this problem, is to do what is achievable and realistic, as well as within the means of this country to achievable. It is better to do something achievable than to engage in aspirational targets which are not achievable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps may first welcome the noble Baroness to her responsibilities on this Bill. As we have come to expect of her, she has responded to the debate with lucidity and courtesy. Unfortunately, that did not make her arguments any stronger. There is a sharp contrast between the very limited mechanistic approach which is undertaken in the Bill towards global environmental problems and the rhetoric which is so prevalent in the White Paper.
The Bill is a mechanistic Bill. It sets out in Clause 3 a series of ways in which a Secretary of State may designate processes which will come under the scope of integrated pollution control. In Clause 5 it sets out a series of ways in which the Secretary of State may authorise processes which are acceptable and therefore, presumably by inference, not authorise those which are not acceptable.
It does not at any stage set out the principles on which the Secretary of State will operate in deciding what processes are and what are not acceptable. Therefore, if we take the Bill at face value, industry in this country has no real guidance on what will and will not be allowed.
We know a lot better than that. We know that there has been a considerable amount of work carried out over the years on the examination of what industrial processes are acceptable and what are not. We know that the Government have been thinking about these problems and that local authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution—and when we come to water pollution the National Rivers Authority—have all been concerned with what is and what is not acceptable.
The Bill does not tell us any of this; it simply sets up a series of mechanisms which allow the Secretary of State to take action as he thinks fit. That is a long way from the greening of the Government that was announced by the Prime Minister two years ago.
We are grateful for the support from all Benches in the matter. It is the intention of the Opposition to put some flesh on these bones and to give some meaning to the procedures which are laid down in the Bill. Not that the procedures themselves are wrong—some of them are, but most are reasonable and reasonably practicable. What is not at all clear is the Government's intention in these matters: what resources the Government will put into it, what powers the Government will take and what they will do to ensure that we have a policy in this country of sustainable development.
In introducing the White Paper, the Secretary of State—and I had the pleasure of hearing him at the Open University's open forum programme yesterday evening—described the White Paper as a first effort. It is rather a belated first effort if it comes two years after the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society. She has now moved on and is making a call to all nations to take part in environmental protection. I suggest to the House that it does not come very well for a Prime Minister to call on all nations to take part in environmental protection and then hide behind the

31
achievement of other nations in even setting targets for what we ourselves will do. Surely, if we are making a call to all nations we should take the lead in setting the standards and we should require that other nations should follow us. What the Prime Minister is doing is rather like the Duke of Plaza Toro; she is leading her regiment from behind because she finds it less exciting. That is not satisfactory and does not fit in with the rhetoric of the White Paper.
The Secretary of State may be disarming on this matter. He may make modest statements about what the White Paper is there to achieve. However, unfortunately it is unilateral disarmament. He is disarming himself and his colleagues without ever seeing what can be done to achieve a more effective White Paper. We on all Benches on this side of the House are in favour of an effective environmental policy. We would be in favour of an effective White Paper from the Government. If there had been one, we would have been the first to give it a wholehearted welcome.
With the amendments and in particular Amendment No. 1, we give an opportunity for the Government to make reality of what are otherwise simply beautiful words and beautiful pictures. I suggest in relation to this amendment that if we were to accept a target date of the year 2000 for 1990 levels, that would not only be in accordance with what scientific evidence accepts as being necessary to slow down —no more than that—the rate of global warming, but it would in many ways be easier to achieve than the date of 2005. If we had a 2000 date we would be forced to begin to deal with the issues of emissions from transport. The Minister started to admit that in her reply. We would be forced straight away to start to think of changing the balance of public subsidy as between the private car and public transport. We would be forced to recognise the need for differential energy prices and perhaps higher energy prices. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, recognised that, and it is why he opposed the amendments.
It would be easier for us now to tackle the problem than to sit back for five years—which is rather what I fear will happen—to let matters get worse and then be forced to have a 10-year crash programme from a higher level of emissions to a more difficult target to achieve at the year 2005. It is not only that 2005 is not good enough in global terms; it is not realistic or practical. The Government have an opportunity to recognise that by accepting the amendment. I take it from the Minister's speech that she has no intention of doing so, and I think it therefore proper to take the opinion of the House.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller]

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kintore, E.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McNair, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nathan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Parry, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Crook, L.

Phillips, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Richard, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Galpern, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

[Teller]

Temple of Stowe, E.

Gregson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grey, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winstanley, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Derwent, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eccles, V.

Allerton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elles, B.

Arran, E.

Elton, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Foley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Beloff, L.

Gainford, L.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Blake, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Blatch, B.

L.

Blyth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Boardman, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Borthwick, L.

Havers, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brightman, L.

Hives, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Holderness, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hood, V.

Caithness, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ingrow, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Carnock, L.

Killearn, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Colwyn, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Cox, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Craigton, L.

Layton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

33

Luke, L.

Renwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Richardson, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rodney, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Davids, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Slim, V.

Margadale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strange, B.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mostyn, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Munster, E.

Swansea, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swinfen, L.

Nelson, E.

Swinton, E.

Norrie, L.

Terrington, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trumpington, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Tryon, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Underhill, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Polwarth, L.

Wise, L.

Porritt, L.

Wolfson, L.

Reay, L

Young, B.

Renton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause I, insert the following new clause
"Environmental Protection Agency
—(1) The Secretary of State may by Order establish as soon as practicable a body corporate for the purpose of advising him on, undertaking research concerning, and promoting the carrying out of, such of the functions vested in him under this Act as he considers appropriate and specifies in a direction to that body, including any of the functions specified in subsection (3) below.
(2) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with such person; as appear to be concerned, by order transfer to the body established under this section the responsibility for exercising on his behalf such of the functions specified under subsection (4) below, or such part of any such function, as he may consider appropriate.
(3) Any body established under this section shall submit an annual Report to the Secretary of State, who shall lay such a Report before Parliament together with such comments or recommendations as he considers appropriate.
(4) The functions vested in the Secretary of State under this Act to which a direction under subsection (1) above, or an Order under subsection (2) above, may refer shall include —

(a) the promotion of preventive measures against pollution, or clean technologies and the development of integrated pollution control generally;

(b) the prescription of processes falling within national control in accordance with the provisions of Part I of this Act;

(c) the issuing of advice as to best practice in the management of waste, including hazardous waste, in accordance with the provisions of Part II below;

(d) the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste;

(e) the monitoring of national standards as to pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance, litter and substances and organisms falling within Parts V and VI below;

(f) the promotion with local authorities of Environmental Impact Analysis in planning matters;

34

(g) the undertaking of long-term research on environmental and ecological matters;

(h) the promotion of public education as to environmental matters, where appropriate in liaison with local education authorities.

(i) the co-ordination of improvements to the environment in inner city areas, including the reclamation of urban land;

(j) the exercise on behalf of the Secretary of State of functions under sections 133 and 134 in relation to toxic waste;

(k) the monitoring of activities connected with dumping at sea as referred to in section 138 below;

(l) the provision of advice and recommendations as to financial assistance for environmental purposes in accordance with section 143 below; and

(m) the promotion of international co-operation on environmental measures and the dissemination of best practice.

(5) The body established under this section shall have such a membership as appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of organisations concerned with environmental, scientific and conservation matters, and of local authorities.
(6) Any body to which functions are transferred under subsection (2) above shall publish and submit to Ministers quarterly reports on each function transferred to it and shall supply such information to such Departments of State as the Secretary of State may specify in relation to the carrying out of its functions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House, although perhaps disappointed, will not be surprised to hear that Amendment No. 2 is very much on the same lines as the previous amendment, in the sense that we are still trying to get some teeth into the proposals which are set out in the Bill and in the White Paper for integrated pollution control.
In Chapter 18 of the White Paper, the Government propose that they will keep in place the White Paper co-ordinating machinery. That is presumably the Cabinet committee which was established to consider the White Paper. I am not in any way attacking the ability of all those who took part in the planning mechanism for the White Paper. Clearly, a major job of co-ordination was required to have a secretariat working for a Cabinet committee on which so many government departments were represented. If you look at the front of the White Paper, you will see that it is presented to Parliament by no fewer than 13 Secretaries of State. But the procedures for producing a White Paper are not exactly the same kind of procedures that are necessary to produce an environmental policy and make an environmental policy stick.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis this afternoon talked about the nominated Minister in each department and the risk that the nominated Minister would simply be—I think that this was the word used —a watchdog; in other words, someone there to see not that the interests of the environment were protected, but that the interests of the department concerned were protected against anyone who might want to interfere on behalf of the environment. If a junior Minister in the Department of Energy or the Department of Transport or wherever else it may be is nominated as the responsible Minister within that department, it is clear where his loyalties will lie. He

35
will be concerned with pleasing his Secretary of State and meeting the needs of his colleagues in the department rather than acting as a nark, so to speak, on behalf of the environment in the department.
We have had an example of that relatively recently. I do not know whether any noble Lords remember the grand proceedings on inner cities. A glossy pamphlet produced by the Department of the Environment nominated no fewer than 18 Ministers in a large number of government departments as being Ministers especially responsible for inner cities. What has happened to them now? We had a glossy pamphlet. We have not had any action resulting from it. I challenge the Minister, or the noble Lord who is to reply, to remember the names of those 18 Ministers who took part in that great initiative on inner cities, let alone what departments they came from.
In Chapter 18 of the White Paper we are told that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will be named as a "Next Steps" agency. It is possibly better if we reserve debate on that issue until we come to later amendments on the resources for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. However, though the experience of next steps agencies may or may not be admirable in terms of the independence that they gain from political control, there is certainly no evidence that as a result they are able effectively to argue the case for environmental protection in government as a whole, which should be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.
What does Chapter 18 of the White Paper tell us about the future? There is no indication as to the relationship between Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the National Rivers Authority. That is a quite fundamental matter which ought to have been addressed in the White Paper. It is recognised in the White Paper that there is a problem, that there may be overlap and that elements of pollution may fall between the two agencies. The question is not resolved, nor is there even a suggestion of a resolution. There is no suggestion of the solution to the problem of how Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is to deal with waste disposal problems. What is to be the relationship between HMIP and local authorities? None of those matters are dealt with adequately in the White Paper, which simply raises a series of questions without giving adequate answers.
There is reference in the White Paper to the regulations set out in the resolution of the European Council of Ministers of May 1990. It is true that the European environment agency which is proposed is to be only an advisory rather than an enforcement agency. Can there be any doubt that the next step for Europe must be some form of European enforcement agency? Every directive and draft directive from Brussels makes it clear that there will have to be an effective body of people—some would say a bureaucracy—able to put into effect the decisions of the European Community. It will have to go beyond co-ordination, consultation and the collection of knowledge and research. It will have to do what the European Parliament wanted it to do, namely, to
36
supervise the extent to which Community rules in the environmental area are observed in each member state. That will require a body of people who are responsible to Her Majesty's Government for all the aspects of environmental protection which are set out in Amendment No. 2.
It will be obvious to the House that we have not made up the list of duties of an environmental protection agency from scratch. They follow and extend those which are set out in European Community regulations. They are there for a very good reason: there must be a single body responsible to Ministers—and we shall deal with the question of which Ministers in a later amendment—which can take full responsibility and therefore can make Ministers accountable to Parliament. Unless Ministers have a coherent body of officials behind them adequately covering the range of responsibilities which are placed on them the Government will not be able to answer adequately to Parliament.
I believe that in commending the amendment to the House I am following a precedent which deserves, and will need, to be followed on many future occasions. It is essential for the credibility of the Government's position on environmental protection that they should have the means to carry out what they so glibly state as objectives in the White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment because there must be a coherent body to provide a means of enforcing any regulations. We should have had an environmental protection agency a long time ago. Whenever regulations are laid down and objectives are set there must be some way of finding out whether those objectives are being met. Unless we have a coherent body such as the one suggested in the amendment we shall never have full and coherent enforcement of such regulations.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to ask two or three questions about what is intended and the meaning of the drafting of the amendment. Those questions arise from the fact that in a Bill of this kind wherever the words "the Secretary of State" appear they apply to any Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has rightly pointed out that large numbers of Ministers, in many departments, are involved in protecting the environment. Nominating junior or senior Ministers for that role may help, and we hope that they will be concerned about the environment even if their main duties lie elsewhere. My point concerns mainly Ministers who have specific functions.
The Secretary of State for the Environment operates only in England. He has no functions or responsibilities in Scotland, and, I am told reliably, hardly any now in Wales. He does not operate in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether there will be four environmental advisory bodies; as the amendment is drafted that could easily be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has heard me say before that the Secretary of State for the Environment deals only with England and takes no decisions on

37
environmental matters in Scotland. He should be, and rightly as, the lead Minister in the United Kingdom. It is he who should be involved in negotiations with other countries and in working out policies for the country as a whole. However, decisions on the matters listed in subsection (4) are matters which are decided in Scotland, for example, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. There the Secretary of State for the Environment has no responsibility for such matters.
The noble Lord mentioned Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. That usually means the inspectorate in England because there is a separate corps in Scotland which works directly for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble Lord mentioned the National Rivers Authority, which operates only in England and Wales and has no functions in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
I agree that that situation makes drafting difficult. It is the convention that "the Secretary of State" covers all Secretaries of State, and during the Committee stage we all agreed that when the term appeared in the singular it would affect three or four Secretaries of State at the same time. The position must therefore be made clear. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not think that I am being a bore on this subject, but it matters a great deal to people north of the Border. While two-thirds of natural resources are in England and Wales at least one-third are in Scotland. Therefore I hope that when dealing with this new clause we can know how the amendment as drafted will lead to any individual Secretary of State taking action. The first two lines call upon "the Secretary of State" to appoint an advisory committee for the purpose of advising "him". Should it be "him" or should it be "them"? That is the point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I can deal with the issue to avoid clouding the rest of the debate because, since this is Report stage, it is not possible to come back to the point after the Government Front Bench has replied. I yield to the experience of the noble Lord as a former Secretary of State. The difficulty that he sees in the amendment arises, as he will recognise, in every single part of the Bill. "The Secretary of State" always refers to different Secretaries of State for different parts of the country, and often to a plurality of Secretaries of State for different purposes.
Opening the Bill almost at random, I draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 16, which states that the Secretary of State appoints chief inspectors and other inspectors. Clause 16 is careful to state in subsection (3) that:
"In 'elation to England and Wales the Secretary of State shall constitute one of the inspectors … to be the chief inspector for England and Wales and in relation to Scotland the Secretary of State"—
presumably in this case the Secretary of State for Scotland—
"shall constitute one of the said inspectors to be the chief inspector for Scotland".
That is the only reference made anywhere in that clause to England and Wales and Scotland separately.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if the noble Lord—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may just finish the sentence. The rest of the clause and many clauses throughout the Bill go on to prescribe the duties of inspectors to the Secretary of State or the duties of local authorities to the Secretary of State. They simply take into account almost by ignoring them the fact that there will be different Secretaries of State.
Let me make clear what is intended by this amendment. We recognise that more than one Secretary of State is involved. We recognise that there will certainly be different procedures in Scotland from those in England and Wales and probably Northern Ireland. We recognise that there will be interests other than the Department of the Environment—the interests of energy, transport, agriculture, fisheries and food and so on.
We deal with this question—which is a major problem for the Government in their Bill but not a problem for the amendment—in our Amendment No. 3, which proposes a Minister for Environmental Protection. That is the true answer to the problem. However if we propose an organisation, it is a matter for the Secretary of State "collectively" to decide whether it shall be on a country basis or a national basis. That is a matter which does not need to be written on the face of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to say that I am most grateful to him for dealing with that point straightaway. It is important to the whole discussion of the amendment. What he said—and said very concisely —at the beginning in his reference to Clause 16 is what I said at length and pointed out at least twice during the Committee stage. We both used almost the same words to point out that several Secretaries of State had to work in different parts of this Bill. However, in every other part of the Bill it is clear how the convention of our drafting will be carried out. It was not clear until the noble Lord told us a moment ago how this would operate in the new clause.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I may say so, the difficulty is far greater for the Government than for us in this amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, initially I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was on to an unanswerable point. I became less convinced when I heard the response from my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would support this amendment if he were satisfied on the point that he made. I suspect that the answer is no, but it is an intriguing thought.
My noble friend drew attention to the standing committee of Ministers, which I mentioned in an earlier debate. He suspected that junior Ministers might experience some challenge to their loyalties. That may be even more the case when it is the senior Minister who is appointed to that standing committee,

39
as has happened in a number of instances. I remain to be convinced that this will be a real protector of environmental interests.
The Government assert that they are convinced by the argument that environmental concerns have to be integrated into all policy areas. It has taken them rather a long time to wake up to that fact. I believe, though I am not sure, that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was one of the Environment Ministers at the time when the Fourth Action Programme was adopted by the European Community back in 1987. One of the bull points of the Fourth Action Programme was precisely to endorse that principle. It has taken the Government three years.
As I said, I am not convinced that they have done so. It will take much more than a Standing Committee to integrate environmental concerns into all areas of government policy. One has simply to consider the discordant note struck by the activities of the Department of Transport when it comes to the environmental area and its abysmal record, as well as that of the Department of Energy, in protecting the environment to become rather sceptical about this proposal.
The importance of the protection agency that my noble friend endorses and which I too endorse is that it should be independent of government. At the present time there is an interesting debate taking place inside the European Community. It concerns the proposals that have been advanced by the European Commission and adopted by governments—I believe with unseemly haste, because when governments agree to proposals of that kind within a relatively short time span as a former commissioner for the environment I begin to question the value of the proposals. They have done so. So be it.
However, it is not a revolutionary idea. It is a data-gathering idea. It is the dissemination of information and the provision of information regarding the state of environmental law in each of the member states. It is all very valuable, but I am not totally convinced that it requires a separate part of the Brussels bureaucracy to acquire all that information. Why could it not have been done by Directorate General XI, which deals with the environment? However, there it is. Perhaps it is a first step and the way in which we may seek encouragement from the idea.
The European Parliament looks for something far more radical; namely, an organisation which is capable of enforcing the law as an independent organisation. Unless and until governments are prepared to commit resources in terms of personnel and finance to any such enterprise, it is doomed to failure. That is why I should have been somewhat cautious about accepting the idea of President Delors until and unless one could be reasonably convinced that the member states of the Community were prepared to allocate the necessary resources to make it succeed. Given that political will and commitment I
40
believe that the idea, which is not a novel one and has been deployed in the United States for many years now, is one which should be welcomed.
Our Government are less than enthusiastic about any such idea. They are rather frightened of committing—or perhaps deliberately refuse to commit —the necessary resources to our own enforcement agencies. Consequently, it is pie in the sky to hope that the idea of a European environmental protection agency will get off the ground in the foreseeable future, much as I applaud that concept.
However, that does not mean that in this House and elsewhere we should not urge the idea of an environmental protection agency for this country. In the United States overall it has worked with remarkable success. Why should we not commit ourselves to the very same idea? Is that not a good example? Admittedly, the system of law in the United States which buttresses the EPA is different. We can build on that. We can deploy our experience here. Therefore it is an idea that I thoroughly endorse. It is sad that the Government show no indication whatever to put themselves behind this commitment and make sure that we get something of this sort within the foreseeable future.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, based on his own interesting experience, about an environmental agency is most fascinating. However, with great respect to him, it has nothing to do with the amendment. The amendment deals with an entirely separate situation; namely, ministerial responsibility within the United Kingdom Government for the matters in this Bill. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I suggest that not only is his amendment unnecessary but it could be counter-productive in part for the reasons mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
However, under the Bill as it stands no fewer than four Secretaries of State—all members of the Cabinet —will have a responsibility for the implementation of the Bill. As my noble friend has said, the Secretary of State for the Environment is to be the lead Minister. His direct responsibility is in England. However, we shall have the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland within their own spheres also responsible for the implementation of the Bill. That is a pretty strong Cabinet team.
In addition, as was mentioned by my noble friend, and was stated by the Prime Minister when the White Paper was issued, environmental protection affects nearly all departments. The duties of Ministers in other departments are to be defined and published. That is the position without the amendment. If we accepted the amendment proposing the newly named Minister—
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I believe that he is speaking to the wrong amendment. I have moved Amendment

41
No. 2. We were brought on to other matters by his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. However, I believe that he is speaking to Amendment No. 3.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am ashamed to say that the noble Lord is right. I apologise to your Lordships. I hope that I shall not have to repeat the same speech when we reach Amendment No. 3. I hope to do better as the Session gets under way.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton does not need to apologise. In a sense the two amendments raise much the same issue from different aspects. In the hope of addressing Amendment No. 2, I should like to pick up some of the points which my noble friend has made about the unsuitability within our Cabinet and parliamentary system of establishing an agency such as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has suggested.
One has only to ask such questions as he raised in order to realise how impossible such an agency would be within our system. He talked about resources. As we know, and read daily in our press, resources for departments ultimately are the result of negotiations which Ministers conduct with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Departments have a range of interests. In the field of transport the Government may decide that they wish to undertake more research into cleaner exhausts. That has to be fought for by the Secretary of State for Transport. He has to weigh that against his other responsibilities.
I draw on my experience as Secretary of State for the Environment. With regard to international policy, the Government may wish to accede to the 30 per cent. club (as it used to be called) on reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide and NOx by 30 per cent. from a datum of 1980. That affects not only the Department of Energy but the Foreign Office, the Department of the Environment and others.
Those decisions are taken either by a whole Cabinet or the Cabinet Committee with Ministers fighting their corner—because inevitably there may be conflict. The Cabinet reaches a resolution at the end of the day. Is it suggested that the proposed agency will override the departmental interests of Ministers? Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shakes his head. How could it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not only shaking my head; I am reflecting the terms of the amendment. It proposes:
"Promoting the carrying out of, such of the functions vested in him … as he considers appropriate and specifies in a direction to that body".
Clearly the matter goes back to the Secretary of State.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Of course it goes back, but there will be many Secretaries of State. I pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I do not understand how such an agency will reconcile the differences which inevitably arise between departmental objectives. The normal processes of discussion and argument result in a decision of the Government as a whole. I suspect that the only result of imposing such an agency on the system will be to add yet one more voice, one more body that has
42
to have copies of everything, one more body that will submit papers and one more body that will seek to tell departments what they should do.
The proposal in the White Paper—that there should be lead departments but that every department should have a Minister who is keeping an eye on it —seems a much more practicable solution.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked a valid question. I shall ask one of my noble friends on the Front Bench. Will the proposal resolve some of the problems with which we are confronted today? In the course of the debates on the Water Act there was a good deal of discussion on the different roles of the National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. The argument has continued. During the Recess I chaired a conference on the implementation of the Water Act. We heard a very interesting speech from the chief executive of the National Rivers Authority. He said that the NRA has now achieved a memorandum of understanding with HMIP. That is very good news. It is important that that should be done.
In the course of his reply will my noble friend tell us when such a memorandum will be published? From the point of view of people in the industry it is important that it should be published fairly soon. It was a public conference. It is public knowledge that such a memorandum of understanding has been reached and signed. When will it be published?
How will the proposed agency avoid such a problem? It will add one more voice and one more source of advice and information to that which already exists. As one who has sat through the process of discussing these matters with colleagues in government on the environment scene, I find it difficult to see how such a body would fit in with our system of government and of parliamentary responsibility.
In his reply perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can go a little further to convince the House. On the basis of the arguments that I have heard so far, I would not be tempted to support his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in opposition to the amendment. From my experience there would be some logic in what he says if government departments—I do not refer only to present government departments—were the front runners or innovators of some of the more progressive issues dealing with the environment. But, sadly, they are not. From recent experience Government appear to be the worst in terms of ignoring legislation that has been passed in another place and in this House when dealing with people "out in the sticks".
I cite two instances. Governments—and I include the present Government—do not have the best record for employing people under the sick and disabled legislation. They do not have the best record for implementing the offices and shops legislation. I doubt whether the staff working in this Palace of

43
Westminster enjoy the conditions that the offices and shops legislation is supposed to accord them in their working lives.
There is a case for having some kind of overlord to deal equally with every department of state. I do not believe that any four Secretaries of State will see the priorities regarding the environment as being the same. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke of the battle for resources which would take place annually. There may well be a Secretary of State who will have a strong leaning towards cleaning up the environment as regards his department. However, there may be another Secretary of State who will see that as being low on his list of priorities. Under such circumstances who will decide what will happen?
I listened with great care to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who was a Secretary of State and some of them deserve to be taken seriously. However, on the basis of my experience I do not trust Secretaries of State in this or any future government to look after their departments in terms of the environment as the general public might wish. My noble friend Lord McIntosh made a case which is worthy of serious consideration.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what has been said and I am anxious about the way in which the many admirable objectives of the legislation will be carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has enormous experience in government. He conjured up in my mind the picture of virtually every issue having to go before an inter-departmental committee for endless debate before any action was taken.
The point raised initially by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and dealt with in the subsequent debate, suggests that a way around the problem must be found. When the Health and Safety Executive was considered I was at the National Coal Board. We fought hard against the executive because we believed that safety in mines was totally different from safety on the shop floor and elsewhere and that therefore we should continue to control it. In the event the executive has worked out fairly well. All health and safety legislation has been brought together in the hands of one executive. It must keep in touch with many government departments all of which have interests in health and safety. In the event the executive was the right way forward. I fail to see why as regards pollution we should not learn by our experience of health and safety.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, there can be no argument that we must have in place the right machinery to secure the protection of the environment. The Bill is the proof of the Government's determination to secure that, as, indeed, was the creation last year of the powerful National Rivers Authority and of the pollution inspectorate two years previously.
The Opposition's specific case has been that there should be a single independent body with a broad
44
range of executive and advisory functions—enforcement, policy development, research, exhortation and so forth—covering the whole field of environmental protection and embracing both the HMIP and the NRA. The Government's response to that specific case, put forward in a number of quarters, was completely fair and reasonable. We made it clear that we were not closed to arguments in favour of a broadly-based independent environmental executive but that we had reservations; for example, about the risk of unwarranted bureaucracy and the loss of political accountability, given by my noble friend Lord Jenkin as a reason against an EPA. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear that he was examining the institutional question with a completely open mind in the context of the environmental White Paper.
Chapter 18 of the White Paper sets out the conclusion that the Government reached after a careful examination of our existing institutions for environmental protection. The conclusion was that the time was not right to think of a further major constructional change to the system such as the amalgamation of the existing regulatory bodies. The NRA has been in existence for less than a year. HMIP, which was set up in 1987, receives considerable new functions in the Bill. Local authorities also gain important new responsibilities. The White Paper states:
"The Government has concluded that the case … is insufficient to outweigh the disadvantages of further administrative upheaval at just the time when the new organisations are getting into their stride".
However, the White Paper goes on to put forward two ways of strengthening HMIP's position. First, it proposes to make HMIP a candidate to become a Next Steps agency, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, under the programme launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in 1988. In other words, it is proposed to make it a separate executive agency within government. That is in line with the policy that the executive functions of government should be conducted through such agencies to the greatest extent practicable. The move should give HMIP not only greater financial and administrative freedom of action but also an enhanced status, a clearly separate identity and therefore greater authority.
The second initiative announced in the White Paper was the appointment of an independent advisory committee to advise HMIP on all its responsibilities. That too will have an important contribution to offer. It will make available new independent sources of advice from a wide range of informed opinion which will reinforce the role and the authority of HMIP. I believe that both those important developments should be welcome to your Lordships.
However, matters do not have to end there for all time. The White Paper also points to the possibility of further measures in due course. One such measure is the creation of a new umbrella body overseeing the work of the NRA and HMIP. Another is the expansion of HMIP's role as regards the regulation of waste disposal. I am confident that your Lordships

45
will endorse our main finding that for the short term the greatest advantage must lie in giving the existing organisations full opportunity to settle down and establish their credibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the issue of the European Environmental Agency. The United Kingdom Government have strongly supported the EC's proposal for the environmental agency; indeed, we tendered a bid for it to be located in Cambridge. The noble Lord spoke favourably about the proposals of the European Parliament to convert the proposed agency into some kind of supranational police force. While we have pressed the EC Commission strongly to increase its efforts to secure the compliance of member states with Community legislation on the environment, we can see no justification for a special pan-European enforcement agency of that kind.
The noble Lord also turned to the United States in order to give an example of its Environmental Protection Agency. We believe that it is not well conceived as an example of what we should do. The Environmental Protection Agency is a federal institution and exists in an entirely different institutional set-up. Its purview includes all the environmental media but it is not primarily an enforcement agency. The executive task of pollution control is one for individual states which are free to make their own laws on the subject provided that they do not violate federal laws. The EPA is thus close in concept to a federal ministry for the environment. That has now been acknowledged by the President's recent decision to bring the EPA within government, to make its administrator a secretary of state and give him a seat in the Cabinet. So the system will move not n the direction recommended by the noble Lord in his amendment but away from it.
In our view, this amendment is not the way to achieve the structures needed to ensure the protection of our environment. I have given the background against which the amendment must be considered, but at first sight noble Lords seem to be asking for something slightly different from what was asked for on previous occasions when this amendment was tabled both here and in the other place.
Amendment No. 2 proposes an advisory body. It would advise the Secretary of State on his functions under the Act, undertake research on them and promote their carrying out. However, I must confess that it is not entirely clear what that means. At the Secretary of State's request, it would assume responsibility also for exercising his functions. That does not strike me as being entirely in keeping with the notion of an advisory body.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy raised a very good point which was directed at the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as author of the amendment. I believe that he received a satisfactory reply. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding asked what was the status of the memorandum of understanding between the NRA and HMIP. I believe that that is now reaching a
46
conclusion. I cannot be specific about when that will he published but I assure the noble Lord that it will be published.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, derided the decision to nominate a Minister in each department to take responsibility for overseeing the environmental dimension in the department's policies. He said that that would be a responsibility shuffled off on to junior Ministers in the Departments of Energy and Transport who would not be able to stand up to their Secretaries of State. Last week the Government published the list of Ministers. The noble Lord may be pleased to learn that the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy have nominated themselves as the environmental Ministers. That indicates the seriousness and effectiveness with which that initiative will be implemented.
As I said, we do not believe that this amendment is the way to achieve the structures needed to ensure protection of our environment in the future. We share the goals of the noble Lord opposite to achieve the right institutional framework. I believe that the further action proposed in the White Paper is evidence of that. However, our present plans are not necessarily fixed for ever. The White Paper makes clear that, as we gain experience of the new structures, the case for further rationalisation may be strengthened. However, surely the right way forward lies with our existing bodies and the new strong and clearly defined roles which they have so recently been given.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I start by dealing with the interventions by two former distinguished Secretaries of State. I have never been a Secretary of State and have only run a small business, so I certainly do not have their experience of government machinery. However, I suggest that they have been adequately answered by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. There is a perfectly good and effective precedent for an independent agency of the sort which we are proposing here in the example of the Health and Safety Executive. That is not responsible only to the Secretary of State for Employment, although the Department of Employment is the lead department. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it works effectively and references can be made to it by any of the Secretaries of State originally responsible for setting it up. It reports to them as regards their own departmental responsibilities. Above all, it is an effective body which ensures that a policy function exists even when it cuts across departmental boundaries.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on Report one cannot speak again, and therefore I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The point about that executive is that the Department of Employment covers Great Britain. The Secretary of State is responsible for Scotland and Wales. That was one of the reasons for the difficulty about bringing in the pollution side of the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred. As regards pollution, the Secretaries of State work in their own different countries and have complete responsibility, given to them by Parliament, for all decisions in those

47
individual countries. That creates the complication which I raised. I thank the noble Lord for the answer which he gave, because it means that there could be three or four advisory councils. That is really what I wanted to know.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there could be, but it is not necessary to decide that now. The Bill does not decide that now. I cited Clause 16, which states that there will be a body of inspectors and that there will be a chief inspector for England and Wales and a chief inspector for Scotland. It does not state that that means that there will be a separate inspectorate for Scotland and for England and Wales. The question of what happens as between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland need not be decided on the face of the Bill. The Government have not done so and we do not do so.
I suggest to your Lordships that these are relatively minor matters. The more important issue with which the House is faced concerns how we are to ensure that action is taken as regards the environment when the Department of the Environment is not the only department concerned. That is the fundamental issue. That has not been answered by the Government's description of what has happened until now and what will happen according to the White Paper.
Let us consider what has happened. There was a great speech in 1988 by the Prime Minister to the Royal Society and there was a great speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Conservative Party Conference in 1989. Both speeches indicated that there would be a comprehensive government review and policy for improving the environment. What happened? A Cabinet Committee was set up—was it Misc. 17? We are not supposed to know that it exists, let alone what are the names and numbers. In that Cabinet Committee the Secretary of State for the Environment was defeated time after time. Whenever there was a challenge, the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy saw to it that their departmental interests as they saw them prevailed over the interests of the Department of the Environment.
When we are told by the noble Lord that the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Transport have nominated themselves as the Ministers responsible for the Environment, that only increases my cynicism. Of course they have done that. They have done that because they do not wish to be outgunned in this Standing Committee by the Secretary of State for the Environment. They will make sure that they are not outgunned because they will pull rank on him on every occasion.
In other words, the obstructiveness which was felt in this Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister will continue in the proposals set out in the White Paper. We are now told that there will be a Standing Committee of Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers may be superhuman, but my experience is that if a Standing Committee continues for long enough its members begin to fidget and to shift their weight from one foot to another. They end up leaning
48
against the mantelpiece. In the end the initiatives collapse, just as the inner cities initiatives collapsed under the weight of people who were supposed to be responsible for them but were not in fact responsible.
No, my Lords. Those are not answers. The noble Lord in his reply to me, in which he accurately repeated the description that I gave of Chapter 18 of the White Paper, did not even suggest that there were any proper answers. All the important decisions have not been taken in the White Paper. This amendment secures that there would be an effective decision and I suggest that the House should support the amendment.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

John Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kintore, E.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L,

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nathan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northfield, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Parry, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ewart Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Newport, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

[Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gregson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Varley, L.

Hooson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blyth, L.

Allerton, L.

Boardman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Borthwick, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Balfour, E.

Brookes, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bellwin, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Bessborough, E.

Butterworth, L.

Blake, L.

Caithness, E.

Blatch, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

49

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Margadale, L.

Carringion, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mersey, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Milverton, L.

Colwyn L.

Mostyn, L.

Cox, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Denham, L.

Newall, L.

Derwent, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elles, B

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Faithfull, B.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Foley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gainford, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gisborough, L.

Polwarth, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Gridley L.

Renton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Renwick, L.

L.

Rodney, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hives, L.

Stockton, E.

Holderness, L.

Strange, B.

Hood, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ingrow L.

Sudeley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Terrington, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Layton. L.

Trefgarne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Tryon, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Luke, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lyell, L.

Wise, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
Clause 1 [Preliminary]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert
("(l0A) Functions exercisable under this Part by the Secretary of State may be undertaken in any case by the Minister for Environmental Protection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rather suspect that with or without the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we have covered a good deal of the ground with which this amendment deals. The amendments are deliberately not grouped together. We recognise that for the Government to pass effective environmental protection measures—if that is their wish—it is not a simple matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made a characteristic contribution. He does not believe that it is possible to have any policy which reflects the view of Government as a whole other than the views of conflicting departments. He does not believe that there is any machinery which makes it possible to achieve that. I take the contrary view. Unless we can get away from government by department and the division of
50
departmental responsibilities, we are abdicating a considerable part of our responsibilities to the nation. I certainly take that view regarding environmental protection
A number of amendments to be debated later today and on future days of this Report Stage reflect our conviction that the issue of environmental protection is greater than the department sponsoring the Bill. That is not to the discredit of the department. It already covers a wide range of responsibilities. It is a fact that environmental protection will not be achieved on a national and global scale without the active co-operation or, if necessary, the enforced co-operation of other departments; notably energy, transport, and, obviously, agriculture. There must also be the active co-operation of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They will be responsible for the implementation of decisions in their areas as well as for taking part in ensuring that those decisions are the right ones.
We have perhaps had enough fun with the so-called Standing Committee of Cabinet Ministers. It is now obvious to your Lordships that that committee has no intention whatever of doing anything other than protecting the bases of the departments concerned. They will not co-operate; they will not ensure that there is an integrated policy. They will ensure that nobody interferes with their own spheres of responsibility. The fact that the present Secretaries of State for Energy and Transport nominated themselves on to that standing committee makes that point 110 per cent. clear.
The view put forward in this amendment is that it is no good relying on a standing committee, whether chaired by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment or anybody else. We must have a Minister for environmental protection. That Minister must have the responsibility of standing in the House of Commons and taking responsibility for the whole range of environmental policies of the Government. That is the purpose of this amendment. It is complementary to the amendment relating to the Environmental Protection Agency and the advisory body. Without further ado, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to resume and conclude the speech which I prematurely and mistakenly made on the previous amendment. I shall not repeat what I said but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has realised that the days when Parliament legislated to define the responsibilities of Ministers and their designation, the responsibilities of junior Ministers, and so on, passed about 30 or 40 years ago. Now, the Prime Minister decides, and sometimes changes, the designations. I believe that certain appointments have to be confirmed by Order in Council but in Parliament we no longer purport to control these matters.
In regard to this amendment, therefore, it would be unusual for us to legislate on the functions exercised by the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out on the previous amendment that the words "Secretary of State" mean

51
any Secretary of State. In this Bill they refer to any of the four Secretaries of State whom I mentioned plus others who were referred to on the previous amendment such as the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Transport, and so on.
We have a very strong team in the Cabinet with responsibility for taking action on these matters. It is best left to the departments which already exercise these various functions instead of doing what the noble Lord said he would prefer; namely, getting away from government by department. That means setting up a huge quango, as we discussed on the previous amendment, which would be largely independent of parliamentary control and a terrible duplication.
The amendment is unnecessary because if it were to be decided that there should be a Minister for environmental protection as well as a Secretary of State there is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister from so arranging it. In any event, one wonders whether such a Minister would be outside the Cabinet, bearing in mind that there are already a great number of Ministers in the Cabinet performing the very functions which the Minister responsible for the protection of the environment would have. I hope the noble Lord will allow me to say, with respect, that the amendment is misconceived.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a few words in reply to the accusations levelled at me, in his charming way, by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Of course it is not every decision which would need to reach a Cabinet committee. There are a great many actions and proposals by government and individual departments that can be agreed and implemented without the matter ever reaching a formal committee.
The problems arise—the noble Lord referred to some of them—when there are clear-cut departmental interests to be resolved. They are resolved through the Cabinet committee machinery. In that direction the noble Lord's proposals break down. He has the marvellous idea of the Minister for environmental protection standing up in the House of Commons—presumably, like the Prime Minister, only able to be in the House of Commons—and propounding the Government's policy on the environment. He can do that if he has the support of his colleagues and has carried his policy in Cabinet. He would he in no different position from any other member of the Cabinet. But he could not announce a policy which did not have the support of the whole Government. Therefore, I believe that, again, the idea is misconceived.
A Minister can be given a specific responsibility to promote a policy. I give as an example the extremely successful period in office of my right honourable friend Kenneth Baker who was asked by the Prime Minister to give a shove to information technology. He was given the title, as a junior Minister, of Minister for Information Technology. At a time when there was perhaps insufficient understanding in many
52
quarters of this country of the importance of a burgeoning industry embraced by the phrase "information technology", he did a most remarkable job in promoting it; not just within the Government but throughout the country as a whole. He gave such technology a tremendous shove and highlighted its importance. But he was not doing anything which in any sense cut across other departmental policies or initiatives. He was taking a subject and giving it a higher profile. He was my junior Minister at the time and, if I may say so, fulfilled his task with immense success.
That is totally different from my understanding of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes. He wants some kind of super-Minister able to over-ride the wishes of his colleagues and arrive at policy proposals which he can then announce despite the opposition of fellow members of the Cabinet. That could not conceivably happen.
Of course we must keep the whole implementation of environmental policy under review. I was much encouraged by what my noble friend said from the Front Bench in answer to the previous amendment. What he said is right. We cannot leap into large new bureaucracies, creating new super-Ministers in the hope that this answers the problem. It is not the answer. There are very real issues and problems to be resolved. In our constitution they will be resolved by the machinery of Cabinet and Cabinet committees, with Ministers ultimately exercising collective responsibility and answerable to Parliament. That is the way it is done. Progress may sometimes be slow. It may not always produce the answer that everybody wants. But it is fairly effective government, and I do not see anything in what is proposed that improves upon it.
Lord Parry: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he will accept that it was his noble friend, not my noble friend, who inadvertently used the word "supernatural" when describing Ministers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Jenkin for the points they made, particularly about the undesirability of using primary legislation for the kind of appointment outlined in the amendment.
I fear that I will not be able to satisfy the noble Lord opposite by offering him any comfort that his ideas suggest a monopoly of concern for the environment by the party opposite. Whether his party would like to have a member of the Government under the illustrious title of Minister for environmental protection is a matter for that party. I remind the noble Lord that we already have a Secretary of State for the Environment sitting in the Cabinet, and an outstanding job he is making of it. We also have a Minister for Environment—this Government are proud to have had the first ever—and he, too, is doing an outstanding job.
I wonder whether anyone here really sets as much store by these proposals and these titles as noble Lords opposite. If they are concerned to ensure the effective delivery of environmental policies in Whitehall I recommend them to look at section 18 of our White

53
Paper That sets out the Government's proposals for an environment Minister in each department as well as a Standing Committee of Cabinet Ministers to consider environmental policies and follow up the policies described in the paper itself. That, I suggest, is the real way of securing proper delivery of environmental policies. We are all green now. Concentrating responsibility for environmental policy yet further in the hands of one person, isolated in his or her own department, is quite the wrong direction in which to be going.
What must be encouraged is that consideration for the environment should become a second nature activity for all who are working in government departments at all levels—national and local—and, indeed, for industry and commerce, and taken even further by all of us as individuals. So I fear that I see no effective purpose behind the noble Lord's amendment.
But turning to the letter of that amendment, it has in practical terms no significance. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the use throughout the Bill of the phrase "Secretary of State" does not refer in legal terms to the individual occupying the post of Secretary of State for the Environment but rather to the legal entity of government. In practice, functions will indeed be exercised by the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Scotland and Wales. But their Ministers of State will act for them on a day-to-day basis in many matters under the Bill as they do for a whole host of matters outside it.
If the suggestion is that we somehow need to provide for a Minister who is mandated to pursue some sort of exclusively green goal, and pay no regard to the interests of his Cabinet colleagues in other departments, I fear that would be a course that I could not recommend to this House. That is not the way that any government do their business, nor is it the way to secure a cleaner environment.
The Government are in business to see that something happens as a result of this Bill by the measures contained in it. This amendment, and the previous one, concern themselves with an overlaying bureaucracy. I cannot commend them to the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not need to detain the House very long on this matter. Obviously, we are aware of the meaning of the words of the amendment. We are also aware that any Secretary of State may delegate any of his functions. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we are very well aware that Parliament does not lay down which particular Minister in a government shall do what. That is why we use the word "may" in the amendment. In this amendment we are not attempting to overthrow the constitution or anything as grand as that. We are simply drawing attention to the undoubted fact that the Department of the Environment does not of itself encompass all environmental responsibilities.
We are not suggesting that the whole system of Cabinet committees to reconcile differences between departments should be overthrown or that the system
54
should be superseded by any super-Minister for environmental protection. We are saying that such a system works in other places. It works in the United States and in Holland where they have much more effective environmental policies than we have. The provision draws attention in public to both a need for public recognition and also, by the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole, to the importance of environmental protection. It draws attention to the inadequacies of the Government's proposals for the co-ordination of environmental policies in this Bill, but particularly also in the White Paper which was supposed to make some progress on this issue. This is not a matter on which I seek the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause I, insert the following new clause:
("Assistance by Secretary of State to local authorities in protecting the environment
—(I) The Secretary of State shall, for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the local environment, give such assistance as may be conducive to the effective carrying-out by local authorities of their functions under this Act.
(2)For the purposes of the general duty referred to in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, in respect of any financial year in which the functions specified in subsection (3) below, or otherwise under this Act, are exercisable by local authorities, satisfy himself that the resources available to those authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of their functions.
(3)For the purposes of this section, the functions of local authorities under this Act shall include—

(a)the promotion, protection and enhancement of the natural and physical environment in their areas, in liaison with national and regional bodies with environmental regulatory functions;

(b)the monitoring and auditing of the quality of the local environment in accordance with standards established under this Act;

(c)the provision of public information on environmental matters relevant to the local area;

(d)the co-ordination of other local authority functions for the purpose of enhancing the local environment;

(e)the local enforcement of requirements in relation to air pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance and such other standards as may be determined under this Act;

(f)the maintenance of such public registers or authorisations, applications and infringements of standards as may he required under this Act; and

(g)the undertaking of environmental impact assessments into local processes capable of causing pollution or likely to arise from development applications.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble colleague Lord McIntosh. The objective of this amendment is to try to obtain from the Government an undertaking that sufficient resources will be made available to local authorities to do the job on behalf of the people under their control or who live in their areas. Local authorities are in the front line of the battle for a clean environment. They already have many legal duties as this Bill is enacted. They also have many powers not only to act against degradation of the environment, but to positively enhance the quality of life for the communities they serve.
Local authorities are likely to be the first point of contact for anybody with a particular environmental problem. Often the solution will lie with the local authority using its powers over such areas as air pollution, noise and nuisance and waste management. We hope that it is not an indication of the real way in which the Government consider local authorities in that the section dealing with Action for Local Authorities appears on the last page of the last chapter of the White Paper. The only section following that which deals with local government is contained in an annexe. Local government is relegated to page 270 of a 298-page document. That does not augur well for the future of local government.
Nevertheless, elsewhere in the White Paper the Government do pay due regard to the role that local authorities can have in environmental policy. In two short paragraphs they pay clue respect to the fact that the best local authorities have an enviable environmental record. They are pioneering ways to co-ordinate their environmental strategies and activities on a corporate basis. However, the White Paper does not create a framework within which local authorities can work with central government. Within an interlocking national, regional and local environmental protection agency set-up, local authorities can act on an agency basis for the national environment protection executive on many issues, building on their responsibilities over pollution and waste disposal.
While not losing any powers, local authorities can draw on specialist advice and facilities of the national bodies, while they in turn will need the results of local authority monitoring to build up a picture of environmental problems. Local authorities have many powers and duties which are not only to protect the environment but actually to enhance it. Their role in the planning system gives them the power to preserve and enhance the natural environment and to ensure that new development fits in with local surroundings and that derelict land is brought hack into use as quickly as possible.
Their role in dealing with waste collection and management gives them the power to develop an integrated birth-to-earth approach to waste management. Their role in transport planning gives them the power to introduce less environmentally damaging traffic calming schemes. It gives them power to promote traffic management schemes, integrated public transport services and new environmentally sensitive transport infrastructures such as light rail services and cycleways.
Local authorities can also play an important part in energy conservation policies. Already many authorities have saved their ratepayers substantial sums of money through their energy conservation measures in the buildings that they own and manage. Waste can be used as a fuel in combined heat and power schemes and in insulation and energy conservation. Local authorities should carry out regular audits of their own activities and the state of the environment in their local communities. The decentralisation of decision-making helps to make local authorities sensitive to the
56
needs of the environment. A commitment to devolve Whitehall and Westminster decision-making through devolution and reorganisation of local government to produce a single tier of single-purpose districts, with general powers of competence, is an important contribution to that process.
Although there is still a need to take many decisions about minimum standards at EC and UK levels, local decision makers are much more likely to take into account the environmental impact of their deliberations than those remote from the communities directly affected. Therefore, there is a real need to put greater emphasis on the role of local government in environmental policy.
When I began to move this amendment I referred to the fact that the Government have paid some respect to the history of good work that has been done in the past by some local authorities. It is true that over a great number of years local authorities have been the innovators of some of the best policies concerning the environment. As regards my own City of Manchester I mention the smokeless zones, smoke-control areas and food hygiene controls. These provisions are mirrored in most of the other large areas. They were brought about by private Bills and not through government legislation. Therefore, local authorities are aware of what is going on in their particular areas.
It is wrong for us to assume that all areas are alike. They are not. Some of the areas of greatest need can claim to have been rather shabbily treated over the past few years in the disbursement of government funding designed to help them. For example, most of the large cities have twice the national average of deaths from heart failure among males above the age of 50 and twice the national average of deaths among children before the age of one year. That is an example of what is happening in areas such as East Manchester where I originally came from. The problem arises from the environment into which the children are born. While there is deprivation in terms of the quality of housing, and so on, that is the area of real need. The inner cities are being well looked after through the Government's attempts at development. What I am talking about are the areas which buttress the inner living areas—the working class areas—of these major cities.
The Government would do well to consider giving local authorities a more enhanced role. I speak to councillors from Labour areas and Conservative areas. They claim that they are being ignored regarding decisions which affect their communities. This is an excellent chance for the Government to make available the necessary resources to allow councils to get on with the job. They are the best agency to deal with these issues. They know their own priorities. Local government has been under attack for a number of years. I hope that in this instance the Government will look kindly on the new clause and that the Minister will be able to make a sympathetic gesture. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Dean in his very vigorous and justifiable defence of local government and of the role that it can play in giving effect to a truly effective national environmental policy. I at once declare my interest. I served as a member of a local authority in inner London for more than 12 years. In that period I learnt to respect local government. The role local government was permitted to play had been underscored by successive governments, including the one in which I served.
Local government today is under constant attack. Hardly a moment passes without one Minister or another resorting to suggestions that local government is utterly wasteful. Ministers invent all kinds of lunatic new taxes in order to inhibit local government. That perhaps reflects why—this was the point made by my noble friend—local government has been sunk virtually without trace in the White Paper. Perhaps it has not suffered quite as damaging an effect as Professor Pearce, but nonetheless it is quite clear that the Government do not really believe that local government should play a significant role in their plans for the environment or, for that matter, in anything else. What is strange is that in the debates at Second Reading and in Committee lip service was paid by Ministers to the importance of local government in helping to fulfil the objectives of the Government's environmental policy. If that is what they feel, why is local government being starved—and starved it is—of the precious resources it requires in order to fulfil those objectives?
The Government say constantly that they are concerned about wasteful policies on the part of local government. Local government councillors are subjected to stringent provisions and to the powers of the district auditor. If the Government were subject to the powers that the district auditor is able to use in relation to local government, Ministers would have been surcharged over and over again. Some of them might not have been permitted to serve in government ever again. It is not good enough to pay lip service to the role that local government can play.
I know from my time in Europe and before that as a Minister that local government, regardless of party, has been able to initiate and then carry out the most worthwhile programmes of urban renewal and environmental protection and enhancement. Over the years it has been unafraid of doing that. It has garnered its own resources and those of the private sector and of many non-governmental organisations. My noble friend referred to Manchester, but Birmingham too has undertaken the most remarkable efforts to improve a deteriorating environment. Local councillors and officials in local government who serve those councillors are much closer to the requirements of their communities than central government can ever be. Yet the Government have made it plain that the role of central government is almost paramount.
I do not need to rehearse the activities that are undertaken by local government—that was amply done by my noble friend—but I think it is an
58
enormous mistake for central government to become and to seek to become infinitely more powerful in dealing with local communities. I believe that local government should be regarded as an ally and not as an enemy in the battle to ensure that environmental protection in this country is properly advanced. I believe that virtually everything the Government have done in this field has been inimical to the objective for which they themselves claim to be working.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment. It is extraordinary that the only real mention in the White Paper of the role of local authorities—they are mentioned many times in the text—comes on page 270 and amounts to only half a page at that. I have enjoyed reading the White Paper. It is a useful document to remind us of what has been done and can be done. I suggest that the price of £24.50 puts it out of the reach of many people even in these days when new books cost a great deal of money, as I know because I am always buying books.
I suspect that the Minister may have some sympathy with the amendment as I know that she has spent a good deal of time in local government. I feel strongly that there is a role for local authorities, a point expressed so well by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The buildings referred to in the White Paper are all either PSA or government sponsored. For instance, the county architect of the Isle of Wight, Mr. Rainey, won national awards for public buildings. The library in Newport, which I commend to everyone, and the old people's complex at Ryde won national awards. In 1981 or 1982, when I was on the county council, we appointed an energy saving officer. That may well have been done at the suggestion of the then Secretary of State. The officer reported to the council quarterly on savings in energy consumption both in county hall buildings and in schools. Local authorities can play an enormous role. They must be encouraged.
One of the more imaginative ideas from the Countryside Commission recently was for a forest in the Midlands. From newspaper reports over the past few days I see that it is likely to cost up to £100 million. No doubt local authorities such as Birmingham, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, and so on, will be asked to contribute. I hope that sufficient funds will be awarded by government to help the local authorities. That will be necessary if these schemes are to see fruition. It is desperately important to get local authorities involved. The ACC, the ADC and the AMA submitted evidence to him. Many bodies submitted evidence to him. I wonder whether that will be published. A great deal of worthwhile and well thought through documentation must be lying in the Department of the Environment at this time.
I hope that the Government will take a very different attitude to local authorities on the whole question of the environment. Party politics are not involved. The whole nation wants to see these schemes brought to fruition. We need protection from pollution and from the other problems that beset us.

59
Therefore, it is important that local authorities are brought in and used sensibly by the Government to help in resolving environmental problems.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as with the amendment which we discussed as regards the proposals for a national environmental advisory body, this amendment is being discussed in a slightly different form from on previous occasions both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
There can be no doubting the very important role that the local authorities have in protecting and enhancing the environment at the local level. This is something which the Government have laid great stress on, not least during the progress of this Bill. Indeed, the Bill itself is evidence of that, since it very greatly strengthens and widens the local authorities' remit in environmental protection.
Part I gives local authorities considerable new powers to deal with air pollution from a whole range of industrial processes. Part II greatly extends both their own duties with regard to waste management, and their powers to regulate effectively the whole of the waste cycle. Part III streamlines their powers for dealing with statutory nuisance and noise. Part IV not only gives them clear new duties to achieve the best standards in litter clearance but also the power to demand the same standards of other landowners and to deal with those who drop litter.
The White Paper, too, pays tribute to the huge diversity of local authorities' environmental responsibilities, as well as to the great vigour with which many of them are taking up the new challenges that face them. I quote again from the White Paper:
"Local authorities have a key part to play in environmental policy. Not only do they have a range of specific powers and functions which have a direct impact on their local environment, but also, as with Government Departments, almost everything which local authorities do has some impact on the environment"—
I now come to the sentence which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, had the grace to quote—
"The best local authorities have an enviable environmental record, and are pioneering ways of co-ordinating their environmental strategies and activities on a corporate basis".
As well as welcoming the current initiatives from the local authority associations in preparing a guide to environmental best practice by authorities, the White Paper points to the need for central and local government to work closely together on the development and implementation of environmental policies. It therefore proposes to build on existing contacts by creating a new dialogue of regular meetings between the two partners in order to further that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, complained about the fact that the references to local authorities came so late in the White Paper. The first reference to them appears on page 16 of Chapter I of the document. We consider the role of local authorities extremely important and there is no
60
question of relegating references to them to the end of the document or merely to an appendix. Local authorities have been given a central role in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, complained about the cost of the White Paper. It seems it was thought excessive that it was not possible to make it freely available to everyone. However, the noble Lord will perhaps be pleased to know that free copies are to be sent to every school in the country, so that the pupils can become involved in the issues of environmental protection and how best to achieve that aim.
The noble Lord also drew attention to the late reference in the White Paper to the role of local authorities. I should point out to him that the photograph which appears with the heading of Chapter 18 on page 229 (which is devoted to institutions generally) is a cover photograph of Kirklees Town Hall. In my view, some noble Lords were being a little unfair on the Government in that respect.
We have made it abundantly clear that we are alive to the financial implications of the Bill for local authorities. Part I of the Bill provides for a system of full cost recovery charging which is designed to meet all the additional costs of administering the new system of prior authorisations. Indeed, the new controls replace a costly and inefficient system of post hoc controls under the public health Acts, and the result should be a net saving to the local authorities. The Department of the Environment has discussed in detail with the local authority associations what the initial level of charge should be.
A similar system of charging is provided under Part II, which provides local authorities with an entirely new source of finance. Efficiency savings should also result from the streamlined procedures for dealing with statutory nuisance under Part III. Finally, as regards Part IV, we have looked carefully at the results of the Coopers & Lybrand study of the likely cost implications for local authorities of the new litter duties. In the light of this we have taken an additional £50 million into account in calculating the revenue support grant for 1991–92 to cover the increased cost which may arise. I think that that is sufficient evidence to show that there is no need for the noble Lord's new clause in this respect, although I suspect that your Lordships will want to consider again the financial implications of the various parts of the Bill when we reach them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his considered reply. Perhaps I should say from the outset that I shall not be pressing the amendment to a Division. Further, if he thought that I was trying to mislead the House by not giving quite the correct page numbers which refer to local government, I should tell him that that was not my intention.
I should like briefly to refer to a band of people who have been very good in local government over many years. Indeed, they were there even before I came into

61
local government. I am talking about the former public health inspectors, who I believe are now called environmental officers. They provide a tremendous service. I think that they are possibly nearer to the ground in relation to services for the public than most of the other local authority officers.
What worries me is the vast difference between people as regards the areas from which they come. I refer to the geographical areas they are born in and in which they have to live. I wonder whether special consideration will be given to certain areas. I am not trying to downgrade the necessity for environmental measures to be taken in the countryside. Of course there is a need for them. However, I am thinking especially about the areas which have been mentioned in the debate. I believe that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred to Birmingham. There are also certain areas of inner London and many other inner areas of other big cities in respect of which there are horrendous statistics to which I have already referred. Quite a large part of the problem is due to the environment in which people live; in other words, the industrial background. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues did not think that I was referring only to members of my own party when I talked about progressive people historically in local government. That was not my intention. If people thought that it was, hen they misunderstood what I was trying to say.
As regards the history of my own city, there was very little difference between the two parties in moving forward on a progressive basis. I should like to pay full tribute to all the people who took part in the development of that city and to all those from all political parties who took part likewise in all cities. I am not referring just to those in my own party; there were many progressive people involved.
We must encourage such people back into local government. They have left in droves because of the diminution in responsibilities. Moreover, and as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, there has been a gradual reduction in the responsibilities of local government and local councillors over many years by successive governments of the two major parties. That situation is much to be regretted. In my view this is an excellent chance for the Government to put something back, to give such encouragement and thereby get the right people to stand once again for local government appointments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Prescribed processes and prescribed substances]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 4A
Page 4, line 22, after ("regulations") insert ("(a)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7B and 8A. Amendment No. 4A is purely an enabling amendment. When opening the debate on Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the fact that during the past
62
year, and especially in Committee, we were told to wait for the White Paper. I waited for the White Paper. Having studied it, I became convinced that the amendments to which I am now speaking were the right ones and might even achieve government approval.
The amendment builds on the Clause 2 system whereby the Secretary of State may designate any polluting process as one which requires authorisation. It has assumed that the production and use of CFCs will, between now and the Government's stated target date for their phasing out, be made a prescribed process under the Bill; in other words, Amendment No. 78 will result in processes involving CFCs becoming processes for which a licence will be required from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution which may also have specific conditions attached to it.
Amendment No. 8A goes one step further. It requires any regulation relating to CFCs to impose a complete ban on their production and use from 1st January 2000 at the latest. At the same time, it allows the Secretary of State the freedom to impose an earlier prohibition date if he so desires.
The amendments give legislative effect to the statements of intent contained in the White Paper which summarise the Government's view that Britain, together with the European Community, is committed to phasing out CFCs by 2000 and is looking at ways of bringing forward to 1997 the phase-out date in the EC.
Some noble Lords may remember that at the beginning of this year I introduced a Private Member's Bill designed to control and ban the production and use of CFCs. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, answered me and did not oppose the Bill; but unfortunately nothing has happened to it since it passed from the House. In that Bill I asked for CFCs to be banned by 1995 because there are countries in Europe which are banning the use of CFCs from 1994. I am putting forward reasonable amendments today which give the Secretary of State the power to implement at any time between now and 2000 at the latest a ban on CFC production and use. Although the White Paper's statement of intent is welcome, it is by no means a substitute for legislation.
In reply to Amendment No. 1, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that the White Paper is a statement of intent and that legislation will be brought forward over a period of time to implement the statements made in it. The Bill is the perfect opportunity to implement a statement of intent which has already been agreed in the EC. We should have it on our statute book. I therefore hope that the Government and the Minister will be able to accept the amendments. I shall not speak for any longer because in February I took up a great deal of the time of the House with my Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, one or two points are worth mentioning. In the refrigeration trade CFCs are often referred to by their trade name of Freon. It is still extensively used in deep freezers and is one of

63
the cheapest ways of producing the required temperature. As I understand it, domestic refrigerators use it below atmospheric pressure. If there is a leak, it is caused by air getting into the refrigerator, not by CFCs getting out.
Local authorities have an arrangement whereby they take away discarded refrigerators. They suck out the gas, which can be recycled. Carbon dioxide or dry ice, as it is sometimes referred to (CO2) is used as a refrigerant in the bigger factories. It can contribute towards global warming. One of the great advantages of CO2 on board ship is that, although it can be used as a refrigerant, it can also be used for fire fighting. They are gases that we cannot do away with.
I understand that Argon can be used as a refrigerant, but it is a great deal more expensive and much more elaborate. There are one or two other refrigerants. Although I have sympathy with the amendments, there are many occasions in engineering where such gases may still be required. On the other hand, I agree that there are many better and less harmful products which can be used in place of hair sprays and such items.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is not good enough merely to have sympathy with the terms of the amendment. If we are serious about the world's future, and if we recognise what is now clearly established—the relationship between the deterioration in the ozone layer and the use of CFCs—and say that we are sympathetic but can do nothing, all we are doing is to condemn the world and its population to extinction.
I shall take up the noble Earl on another issue: CFCs are not the only refrigerant available for refrigerators. During the passage of the Bill moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, we were approached by members of the trade who pointed out that their work in finding a substitute for CFCs and a way of disposing of refrigerators without releasing CFCs into the atmosphere was made impossible due to the lack of legislation.
I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, in the issue which she has put quite squarely to the Government. She compared what was said in the White Paper and what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about it earlier this afternoon with the terms of this amendment. If the White Paper is a declaration of intent, how will that intent be carried into practice? This is a Government Bill, not an Opposition Bill nor a Private Member's Bill. It is a Government Bill into which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, proposes to insert the intent expressed in the White Paper. Surely, if the Government are committed to that intent and are serious, if they can be trusted to put their intent into practice, if they really intend to do what they say in the White Paper, here is an opportunity in their own Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, pointed out, if action can be taken in other European countries surely it can be taken here. The proposal has been
64
modified from the one that we debated under the earlier Private Member's Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson; it takes five years from the date. The amendment enables the Government to show their good faith in declaring that the White Paper is a statement of intent. The Government are on trial here: either they are serious and can be trusted and the White Paper means what it says, its words are a declaration of intent; if so, the Government will accept the amendment. Or if that is not the case, then they are again using rhetorical words in order to hide their paucity of action.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, it is not often that I have the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on any matter. I do so on this occasion because it has now been plainly stated by my noble friend Lady Robson and by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the intent of the Government is clear. I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in suggesting in any way that the Government are not sincere about their intent. They are quite sincere and mean to carry out that intent.
Here, on this important matter, is an opportunity for the Government to show and do something of great importance in the environmental field. I am sure that noble Lords would wish again to congratulate my noble friend on the Bill on chlorofluorocarbons that she steered through the House. I understand that that was the name of the Bill.
All that the House is being asked to do is to particularise Clause 2(1) by introducing three amendments. The main ones are the two to which my noble friend has spoken and the one clarifying the position on the Government's intent. I very much hope that all noble Lords will support the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to convince all noble Lords that the Government are very serious about the issue. While the intention behind the amendment is understandable, it is largely unnecessary. The practical effects of its adoption could actually be harmful. The amendment is also inappropriate because it takes a provision which gives the Secretary of State powers to react in a flexible manner to damaging industrial processes and requires him to use them in a particular way and for one particular set of processes, with little or no flexibility.
First, the amendment is unnecessary. There will be no new CFCs for industry to use after the end of the century. We have agreed to phase out their consumption by then under the Montreal Protocol. Within the European Community, we are pressing to bring this forward by three years, subject to exemptions for essential uses such as medical aerosols, should no safe substitutes be approved for them. This will, if we are successful, be contained in a Community regulation directly applicable in UK law by the end of the year.
Secondly, the amendment is unwelcome because all it prohibits is two processes which may well be desirable. One is the production of CFCs for export to developing countries which, under the Montreal

65
Protocol, have been given an extra 10 years to phase them out. With the financial help we have promised to give them, we hope that they will not need this extra time. But if they do need the extra time, we certainly do not want them to have to build their own CFC factories.
Thirdly, the amendment would also prohibit the recycling of CFCs for re-use. There are technical and other problems with the incineration of CFCs and should these remain unresolved, we would rather see them re-used—that was the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour—in existing equipment than released into the atmosphere. While existing equipment can re-use CFCs, there is no environmental benefic in requiring it to be prematurely scrapped instead.
This is a well-intentioned amendment. I have no quarrel whatever with its objective of minimising the emission of CFCs but, as I have outlined, the job is being tackled in other ways. The practical effect of the amendment would either be neutral or positively unhelpful. The objectives we share; the intention is a real one and we mean to achieve that objective. The Government cannot accept the amendments in their present form, but I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that in the Government's way the legislation will achieve what she wishes.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am absolutely astounded. I cannot express what I feel. Having used exactly what the Government stated in their White Paper they wanted to do, I am told that it is unnecessary because it is part of the agreement on the Montreal Protocol. We are a nation, we still need legislation to make certain that we will obey what the Montreal Protocol says. I should have thought that we would need legislation to ensure that.
The other plea was that we should feel sorry for third world countries. Of course we do. One of the reasons why CFCs are so dangerous is because the likely growth in third world countries is one of the greatest dangers in the future. The noble Baroness said that these countries needed 10 years. I agree with that. We in the western, developed world are working on alternatives, we are setting up funds to help them so that they do not have to use CFCs. The noble Baroness said that they needed 10 years. It is now 1990 and all I ask is that by the year 2000 this provision will be there. However, if in the meantime development can take place or extra dangers be proved, then under my amendment the Secretary of State will have the right to alter the date.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, would the noble Baroness give way? I am grateful to her. What I actually said was that the developing or underdeveloped countries would need an extra 10 years. During that extra 10 years we believe we could come to their aid with the recycling of CFCs. It will not be the production of CFCs but their recycling and use, rather than these countries having to develop their own factories as a result of this kind of inflexible legislation.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, with all due respect, we have 10 years until the year 2000. We have gone a long way already towards developing alternatives. To recycle CFCs, send them out to third world countries which will inevitably release them into the atmosphere is not the right way to go about matters. CFCs are one of the most dangerous of gases and we have no doubt as to the danger they cause to the ozone layer and their contribution to the greenhouse effect.
I just do not understand why an amendment which states exactly what the Government state in the White Paper cannot be accepted. How does the noble Baroness expect us to believe any other statement of intent in the White Paper if this amendment, which is exactly in line with what the Government have stated, cannot be accepted? I am terribly sorry, but I want to know what the rest of the House thinks about this.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kintore, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nathan, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Parry, L.

Craigavon, V.

Phillips, B.

Crook, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Richard, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

[Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Varley, L.

Jay, L.

Walpole, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brookes, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Blatch, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Blyth, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Coleraine, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cox, B.

67

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mills, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Milverton, L.

Elles, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Faithfull, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nelson, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Gisborough, L.

Norfolk, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Norrie, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Orkney, E.

L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hemphill, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Polwarth, L.

Hesketh, L.

Reay, L.

Hives, L.

Rees, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton, L.

Rodney, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ingrow, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strange, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Lauderdale, F.

Sudeley, L.

Layton, L.

Teviot, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Liverpool, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long. V. [Teller]

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden. L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wise, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Young, B.

Margadale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 23, after second ("process") insert ("which may otherwise lead to unacceptable or unsustainable levels of pollution as specified in guidance under section 6 below, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 24, 25, 27 and 28.
I apologise for the relative complexity of this group of amendments in comparison with what we have been dealing with. Perhaps I may direct noble Lords' attention to the last line of the last amendment. That is what they are all about. Amendment No. 28 introduces new subsection (5A) which states that:
"The Secretary of State shall issue… guidance … specifying … levels of damages which he considers unacceptable or unsustainable—
that is the Government's phrase—
"having regard to the need to secure the progressive reduction of overall levels of pollution".
That, in effect, is what the amendments are all about.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are necessary because they refer forward to Clause 6 of the Bill. They make it possible to refer in Clause 6 to unacceptable or unsustainable levels of pollution. I must confess that I am slightly confused by the term "unsustainable level of pollution" which the Government have included in the Bill. However, the fundamental purpose of the amendment is to make sure that in Clause 6, which as
68
noble Lords will know is concerned with authorisations for processes, we are not simply maintaining the present position but seeking progressively to reduce the overall level of pollution. That is exactly what the Government themselves propose in the White Paper. In paragraph 2.11 they refer to the objective of establishing levels of emission that our air and water can safely tolerate with control mechanisms established on that basis.
It will be readily agreed, I believe, that our air and water are too heavily polluted. Therefore, if we are to achieve the Government's objectives set out in the White Paper we need measures for the progressive reduction of overall levels of pollution. As in so many amendments, we are seeking to avoid conflict between the inadequate terms of the Bill and the admirable objectives of the White Paper. The amendments would achieve that aim without breaking the mould of the Bill and the introduction of pollution control. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords the ultimate purpose of the amendments seems to be to secure that processes prescribed and authorised under Part I do not cause unacceptable pollution. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on that point, and I am delighted to remind him once again that the whole of' Part I of the Bill is directed to that very end. However, it is right to consider whether the detailed provisions of this part on scheduling processes and granting authorizations are watertight in that respect. I am certain that they are.
Turning first to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, their sole purpose is to prevent scheduling of processes which do not have the potential for unacceptable pollution, as defined in the guidance. I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State will be scheduling all processes which carry that potential, and I cannot see that the issuing by the Secretary of State of guidance on the matter will assist his own responsibilities in that regard. So far there is no loophole in Part I for the amendments to fill. That particular aspect of the amendments strikes me therefore as duplication of effort at best. However, there is a disadvantage hidden here, since the amendments specifically limit the scheduling of processes to those which may cause unacceptable pollution as defined in the guidance. That limitation is not a useful or welcome feature; it certainly is not necessary.
There is perhaps a stronger case for considering the next leg—whether the power for enforcing authorities to issue authorisations should similarly be limited by the duty to ensure that processes do not cause unacceptable pollution as defined in the Secretary of State's guidance. Again, I hope that the noble Lord would not argue that that is manifestly the intention of Clause 7 as it stands. Inspectors are already under a duty to ensure that the best available technique is used to prevent and minimise the release of prescribed substances. Those substances will be precisely those which, in the terms of the amendments, would otherwise cause unacceptable damage, unsustainable

69
pollution and so on. So, in other words, operators will be required to do all that technology can reasonably achieve to prevent such damage. They will also have to meet all existing environmental quality standards and similar external environmental requirements, and again those will be in place wherever needed to ensure that the noble Lord's objectives are met.
The amendments provide the additional hurdle for the inspector of satisfying himself that no unacceptable pollution will occur. But that is precisely the question which he will have been addressing in setting the BATNEEC requirements to prevent, minimise and render harmless. If the inspector has satisfied himself at that stage, he is bound to consider that no unacceptable pollution is being caused. If there were a risk of unacceptable pollution he could not consider the technology in question to be BATNEEC. The BATNEEC formula would require greater expenditure on better technology to prevent the unacceptable pollution. In short, an inspector could not meet the Clause 7 duties and objectives and yet consider that unacceptable pollution would occur. Therefore, the amendment achieves nothing at all.
If the noble Lord is concentrating more on the possibility of Secretary of State guidance, I would remind him of Clause 7(11) which requires enforcing authorities to have regard to any such guidance on appropriate techniques and options and also of his power at Clause 6(5) to give directions on conditions. Generally speaking, it must be for the enforcing authorities themselves to determine what is or is not required, but the powers are there to deal with cases where guidance or direction is required.
Amendment No. 25 simply spells out that the conditions in an authorisation are intended to ensure that there is no unacceptable damage to the environment. No amendment is needed to achieve that, which is the explicit purpose of Clause 7 as it stands.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 provide for the Secretary of State's guidance on what does or does not constitute acceptable levels of pollution. It should be clear by now that I see no need for such additional provision in this context or any other. In the case of IPC processes, it will be HMIP's own task to establish what, generally speaking, is an unacceptable level of pollution. That is what HMIP is there for. In particular instances the Secretary of State can, however, issue directions or guidance, or even under Clause 3 establish quality standards, objectives, limits over releases or any other requirements as to any aspect of processes.
This is ample evidence that the noble Lord's amendments would achieve nothing that is not already very amply catered for in the Bill as it stands. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a very complex answer which I shall have to read carefully. However, I have a terrible feeling that I have heard it all before. We had the same debate in Committee when the answer was, in broad terms, that
70
we should wait and see what was in the White Paper, which would show that the Government had given adequate regard to the precautionary principle. Now that we have the White Paper we see that there is a general statement, which I have already quoted, about the need to establish levels of emissions that our air and water can safely tolerate and to set up control mechanisms based on those levels. However, there is no resulting determination by the Government to ensure that the Bill achieves that.
In a long and complex answer the Minister did not once refer to the most important phrase in the six amendments concerning the progressive reduction of overall levels of pollution. I am very dissatisfied with the answer that she gave. However, because it is so complex and because we have another opportunity to come back to the matter, which we may well have to take, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 4, line 23, after ("which") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5A is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 17A. I should like to speak to both amendments together.
The purpose of both amendments is to insist on adequate environmental labelling. That again is referred to in the White Paper—at paragraphs 17.29 to 17.31. The Government state that they are,
"establishing an official eco-labelling scheme to provide authoritative advice to consumers and encourage the production of more environmentally friendly products".
That sounds all very well, except that when one looks at the scheme in more detail it appears that they are talking about a flexible voluntary scheme working with market forces. I am sorry to say that the evidence, which has been investigated to a considerable extent by the European Commission, is that a flexible voluntary scheme working with market forces will not succeed.
There are two kinds of objectives for labelling schemes. The first gives authoritative advice to consumers; for example, about how to dispose of the package when the product has been consumed or in what circumstances the product should be used in order to protect the environment. With that kind of labelling a flexible voluntary scheme could well work because the interests of the producer are the same as the interests of the consumer.
Amendment No. 17A tackles the much more difficult kind of environmental labelling; namely, the need to point out that products which claim to be environmentally friendly—or even which do not claim to be environmentally friendly—in fact are environmentally damaging. Such cases will occur. That is the case in which the interests of the consumer are not the same as the interests of the producer and where a flexible voluntary scheme relying on market forces simply will not produce results.
The Government have recognised that there is a considerable amount of so-called green labelling of so-called green products which grossly exaggerates

71
their environmental friendliness or the difference between what are supposed to be environmentally friendly products and others on the market which do not make such a claim. A number of manufacturers call their products environmentally friendly, very significantly in order to obtain a higher price although the difference between their products and normal products is not all that great. For those kinds of products and in those circumstances the Government's commitment to a flexible voluntary scheme is simply not adequate.
We have been very careful in the wording of this amendment. We have put "may" rather than "shall" because in the first place the European Commission is working on the problem and hopes to have a scheme by the end of 1991. We should not want anything to be done which would interfere with that process. Secondly, we know that there will have to be consultation with industry, commerce and the retail trade before we introduce an effective environmental labelling scheme. However, it is possible to do it by using symbols which will readily become as well known as, for example, the woolmark. It is possible to do everything that is proposed in this amendment without enormous damage to industry. Indeed, it will encourage industry to produce environmentally friendly products. That would be to its commercial advantage because they could continue to be exported to the world as a whole.
I commend this amendment as one which gives teeth to the Government's proclaimed adherence to the principle of environmentally friendly labelling and which will be a benefit to manufacturers as well as consumers. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government cannot accept this group of amendments. We support the need to provide more environmental information about products to consumers and others to inform their purchasing decisions. But that information must be in a manageable and readily understood form. The kind of information listed in Amendment No. 17A might not only be hard to interpret but, I understand, could require very large labels in some cases.
The Government have already committed themselves to introducing an official scheme of eco-labelling to enable consumers and others to identify by means of a simple logo products which are less damaging to the environment than alternative goods which serve the same purpose. This will be a voluntary scheme although, since labels will confer commercial advantage, it will be very much in a manufacturer's own interest to try to get a label. The award of a label will involve looking at the environmental effects of a product throughout its life cycle: manufacture, distribution, use and disposal. It will take account of matters such as energy consumption, packaging and recyclability. So it will cover the matters listed in Amendment No. I 7A. Labels will be awarded only to products which achieve a high standard.
72
We are making good progress in drawing up the scheme in collaboration with our European Community partners, for we believe that a single scheme covering the whole of the Community and with a single label will best serve everyone's needs. We hope that the first labels under it will be available by the end of next year. We are talking about an EC regulation which will have direct effect in this country. These amendments cut across the Government's proposals in this area and I therefore ask the House to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that I had made it entirely clear that these amendments do not cut across the Government's objectives. They do not interfere with the process of consultation which is now in force and do not interfere with the desirability of a European-wide labelling system.
We are glad to know—not that it is news, exactly —that labels for environmentally friendly products will be available by the end of next year. That is exactly in line with the argument on environmental labelling that we have put forward throughout the course of the Bill. This amendment asserts that one has to go further. One has not only to reward environmentally friendly products. One must also warn people about products that are not environmentally friendly, perhaps in the way in which they are produced—in other words, whether they come from recycled content particularly and how they themselves can be recycled subsequently as waste products or as packaging.
The Government's response only goes part of the way towards dealing with the force of the argument put by these amendments. However, at this hour I do not think it appropriate for me to seek the opinion of the House on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the House sits again on Report at 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
7.7 p.m.

Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Williams of Elvel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.

73
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The. Sitting was suspended from 7.9 to 8 p.m.]

Environmental Protection Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5B:
Page 4, line 24, leave out from ("authorisation") to end of line an d insert ("shall not be granted unless the enforcing authority is satisfied that any pollution likely to result is sustainable in relation to any environmental medium, in accordance with section 6(4A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5B I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 29, 30, 34, 44, 45, 49 and 50. Perhaps this is the most extreme example that can yet be found of the conflict between the flowery words of the White Paper and the reality of the Bill before us. We are talking about the concept of sustainable development. That is the key phrase of the Brundtland Report of 1980. In the introductory chapter of the White paper, the Government pay tribute to the principle of sustainable development. The Prime Minister has done so on more than one occasion in the past. The White Paper states in paragraph 1.5:
"Economic growth is not an end in itself…We should naturally avoid policies which secure growth in the short term at the expense of blighting our broader, long term ambitions".
Paragraph 1.14 similarly has the notion that stewardship is the foundation of environmental policies.
What do we find in the Bill? We find something very different. Clause 2 defines substances which are to be covered by integrated pollution control. Clause 2 gives the power to the Secretary of State to define those substances. Clause 3 sets standards for integrated pollution control and the Secretary of State has the power to set those standards. Why? The Bill does not say. There is no reference in the Bill to the sustainable development which is the principle behind the Brundtland Report and a large part of the environmental White Paper, as we understand it. What we have is simply a matter of political control. The Secretary of State shall make up his mind according to his own judgment and that of his colleagues as to what shall be acceptable definitions of the substances to be controlled and the standards that shall be set for them. Any explanation as to why the Secretary of State should act is totally lacking from the Bill.
In a sense one could argue that that is not too important, that we are all agreed about what we should be aiming for in pollution control and that there will not be much disagreement about either the processes and substances which should be covered or the standards that should he set. Debates earlier this afternoon have made it clear that, if we arc all agreed, some are willing to do something about it and some are unwilling. I refer respectively to the Opposition and the Government.
What can we do about it? The series of amendments which begins with Amendment No. 5B seeks to enshrine the principle of the White Paper: that sustainable development should be the guiding principle of pollution control and of environmental policy. The necessary concomitant of that is that fuller and more public information is necessary to ensure that the principles are carried out in practice.
We are not opposing the public information provisions of the Bill. They are all valuable so far as they go. However, it is clear that as soon as one states on the face of the Bill that a major element in Government policy is that sustainable development is the criterion by which the substances in Clause 2 and the standards in Clause 3 will be judged, one then has to provide for the Secretary of State to explain himself. I suggest that the Secretary of State then has a duty to explain why he is acting in the way that he does and to gain a public reaction to what he says. That is why the later amendments are included in the group.
The concept of sustainable development and of wider public information may not seem on the face of it necessarily to be related. However, I strongly argue that they are related. A government programme to improve the environment and to maintain the principle of sustainable development is not capable of being implemented without public consent, understanding and information. That is the reason for including the later amendments in this group.
I very much hope that on this occasion the Government may feel that what is being proposed does not go beyond the principles that they have already established in the early part of the White Paper. I hope that they will feel that, far from being destructive, the amendments add to the Bill and give it more effect, and that they take advantage of what we have learned since the matter was considered earlier in the summer at Committee stage.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish very briefly to give my support to these amendments. I speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 26, 29 and 30 to which I have put my name.
Sustainable development is surely the criterion behind all the efforts towards environmental control if society is to continue to provide a standard of living to which we have become accustomed and is to prevent our own destruction as a result of damage to the environment.
I suggest that the aims behind these amendments are very important. If the public do not have the awareness, if there is no general access to information about what is going on, it will be more difficult to ensure that this sustainable development is achieved. Without public pressure, which can only come with knowledge, we may not have the driving force towards sustainable growth.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the aim of this series of amendments demonstrates the common purpose that unites us today in our consideration of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has explained the

75
objectives. I have to say, however, that the amendments have failed to identify a loophole in our proposals. Their thrust is already achieved in the Bill and in the regulations that we are currently drawing up on application procedures.
Clause 7(2) (a) provides that BATNEEC must be used to prohibit any release that might cause harm as defined in Clause 1(4). The BATNEEC duty of environmental protection bites both for first applications and for variations. Our regulations on applications will require the applicant to include an appraisal of the expected environmental consequences of all anticipated releases. The power to revoke authorisations will be used if the process is causing unacceptable harm. Therefore, unsustainable pollution cannot be permitted under the Bill.
Moreover, the amendments have one glaring defect; that they prohibit the whole system from coming into effect. Amendment No. 5B deletes the requirement on an operator to hold an authorisation, so the whole complex structure elaborated under Part I would fail to bite on a single process. Therefore, I have no hesitation in asking the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The series of amendments raises other issues. Clearly, as Amendment No. 29 suggests, one of the factors that the enforcing authority will need to consider when reviewing an authorisation is the environmental effects of the process. Assessing the effectiveness of the controls will be just as important as considering whether new techniques have become available or whether there is new evidence of the environmental risk posed by the releases from a process. But I suggest that the comparison that is really important here is not, as the amendment suggests, between the actual environmental effects caused by the pollution from a process and the perceived risk as identified in the application, but between the environmental effects, the terms of the authorisation and the environmental risk that it was designed to prevent. The amendment misses the point that it is the authorisation and not the application that defines what level of releases will be allowed. What account does the amendment take of cases where conditions have been varied as a development from the original application?
Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 relating to registers merely reiterate what we have announced to he our intentions. I am happy to take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that such information will be made available on register. Authorisation conditions will spell out clearly what monitoring data the operator is required to send to the enforcing authority. Abnormal emissions and other pollution incidents relating to an authorised process must be reported. Those who have read the first batch of draft guidance notes issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on consultation to local authorities for some of the processes that they are to control will have seen that such details are clearly included.
In line with the announcement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of
76
State, Clause 20(1) (g) secures that all monitoring information supplied in pursuance of the conditions of an authorisation will be placed on the public register. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 add nothing to the existing provisions of Clause 20(1) (g). We have a series of amendments that are unnecessary and. in places, inadequate and even disastrous. Nor do I find them entirely lucid. How does it help, for example, in Amendment No. 26 to refer to a single medium and the environment as a whole? No, as it stands the Bill works. It already achieves all that the noble Lord says that he wishes his amendments to procure. The amendments only confuse and obfuscate and therefore I hope that the noble Lord opposite will agree to withdraw them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that answer is quite unsatisfactory. In order not to draw out the proceedings unnecessarily I shall concentrate on the issue of public information and the public registers. The Minister confidently said that no loopholes can be found in the Government's provision. I refer to the speech of' the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who was the Minister during the Committee stage on 19th June. His answer in respect of Amendment No. 111 was reported at cols. 902 to 903 of Hansard. We then proposed that the public registers should contain estimates of pollution likely to arise from an authorisation which should be updated annually by the licensee. The Minister then said that enforcing authorities would be able to require the operators to furnish details of actual releases, rather than estimates, at regular intervals. However. the loophole is that there is no requirement for such information to he requested or to be placed on the register. In other words, the provision is not contained in the Bill but depends on the Secretary of State and, on occasions, the local authority. In either event, the position is by no means as secure as the Minister would now have us believe in her reply.
I shall take a second and more serious example. The applicants under Part I are not required at present to furnish estimates of the likely pollution consequences of a particular process. It is true that paragraph 1 of Schedule I will enable the Secretary of State to make that a requirement by regulation. However, it is not made a requirement on the face of the Bill either in Part I or in the schedules to Part I of the Bill. Unless the provision is contained on the face of the Bill it is an inadequate provision. The Secretary of State, a local authority or any authority concerned can neglect or fail to require that information to be available. If they fail to require the information it will not be placed on the register.
I have chosen only two examples but I could choose many more. There are many occasions on which we could show that there is no suggestion, let alone a guarantee, that the Secretary of State will require examples of pollution incidents after the licences have been granted. We say that the granting of a licence is not the end of the process. There must be an assurance that the information will be made available on the

77
public registers. The Bill does not provide for that and the loopholes which the Minister denies are still present.
This is a complex series of amendments, as so many are. It may well be that there are points of force in other parts of the Minister's answer which make it necessary for me to withdraw the amendment. However, I am certainly not satisfied that we have adequately enshrined the principle of sustainable development or that we have dealt with the issue of the public information which is necessary to ensure that the principle of sustainable development works. Without prejudice to whatever may be done at a later stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.7:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert ("and to which conditions as specified in directions in accordance with section 7(3A) below shall apply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 to which I shall also speak. They are extremely important amendments. Their purpose is to bring into British legislation the Valdez principles. Noble Lords will recall that after the disastrous incident of the "Exxon Valdez", when a large quantity of oil was spilt on the coast of the United States, there was a movement, not by the United States Government but by ethical investors in the United States, to draw up a series of principles which would be applied to companies to ensure that their tasks are audited in such a way as to promote sustainable development. With relatively minor changes those principles are enshrined particularly in Amendment No. 38 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport.
Environmental auditing is not in conflict with any of the regulatory provisions of Part I of the Bill but has now adequately been shown to be a necessary complement. It is all very well for there to be a formal legal process of identifying substances and processes which need to be the subject of regulation, identifying standards to which those substances and processes should adhere and then giving authorisations for those which fall within the regulation. We do not object to any of those matters which are the essence of integrated pollution control and an important part of the Bill. We do not suggest that they should be removed. However, we say that there are responsibilities on firms which are not adequately reflected by the regulatory procedure.
Unless companies systematically collect environmental information, they cannot even anticipate when they may be in conflict with the regulatory mechanisms. That is important because clearly we do not want this all to be done by conflict. We want companies to avoid the need for regulation rather than falling foul of it and being penalised for it. However, we also want environmental protection to be a
78
management tool. We want it to be part of the day-to-day thinking about the way in which to determine which processes are to be used, the substances to be used, the waste products produced and all aspects of business life which are reflected in environmental principles.
We must integrate environmental policy with economic policy in order to obtain the Brundtland goal of sustainable development about which we spoke on the last amendment. It is not just a matter of determining the means of achieving environmental improvement although of course that is part of it. We must establish the ends and why that is being done. We must establish what targets we are setting for ourselves. Management cannot work by simply looking at a process and saying that one process scrapes through while another one does not. It can only work effectively if it sets to all the managers and workers within the organisation the target of saying that by such and such a date that reduction will he achieved in the output of dangerous waste materials, not just because the law will require it in due course but because that is the right thing to do and that has been set as a management target.
That may be thought to be capitalist thinking; I do not know. It may be that, because that is what happened in the United States as a result of the "Valdez" instrument, somehow we as socialists—and I refer only to my immediate colleagues—should not be adopting such a principle. However, my experience is that unless management is given an opportunity to use environmental considerations as a management tool and unless clean technology is made to be a really effective environmental objective, then one will achieve neither the environmental results which we all need nor will there be the competitiveness which I am convinced will be available to those companies which achieve a higher level of environmental monitoring and management.
Therefore, because we know that managers in industry frequently underestimate the seriousness of environmental problems which surround them, and because they underestimate the benefits available to them from selling to green consumers, we believe that these amendments are important.
In the words of Amendment No. 38, we believe that it should be made a condition of authorisation that there should be:
"the minimisation of pollution to environmental media; the protection of the biosphere; the development of the sustainable use of natural resources; the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste; the conservation of energy; the minimisation of environmental health and safety risks to employees and to other persons; the adoption of voluntary controls over the safety of goods and services produced for sale; the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation for damage caused by the person authorised, or his processes or products; the disclosure of adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies … and the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits to monitor the effectiveness of any principles of actions adopted".
Those principles should not in any way be foreign to the Government's thinking. In fact, I believe that

79
many of them, although not quite in that form, are reflected in the White Paper. They should now be reflected in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I support this amendment and Amendment No. 38 which appears also in my name. This amendment would add an extra Clause 3A to the Bill where the Secretary of State may give directions to the enforcing authorities as to the conditions which are or are not to be included in authorisations.
This matter was drawn to my attention by my wife. When we were modernising our house, she insisted upon having a wooden lavatory seat. I did not want a wooden lavatory seat. However, we were shown one. I immediately questioned the whereabouts of the mahogany and whether it came from the forests of South America or somewhere else. We were assured that the wood did not come from South America and that no forests were being broken down and ravaged to provide lavatory seats for the Ross family. Therefore, we now have a wooden lavatory seat in our house.
However, that is the sort of question that the public are now asking. One of the great things about the Government's White Paper is that it is printed on recycled paper. As they go round the supermarkets in this country more and more people are now inquiring as to where products originate, what damage is being done to the environment and whether paper is recycled. Therefore, I believe that we are on the right lines.
As usual, the West Germans have shown the way in this matter. I have been told that:
"emissions of organic chemicals by West German industry fell by 90 per cent. between 1970 and 1987 despite output increasing by 50 per cent.".
That shows that there can be growth while at the same time looking after the environment. That is why I feel that this is a worthwhile amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the list of considerations put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at first sight seems unexceptionable. For example, integrated pollution control is about the minimisation (and indeed where practicable the prevention) of pollution. Similarly, the fourth item on the noble Lord's shopping list is the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste. What is Part I of the Bill about if not this?
Clause 7(2) states that BATNEEC must be used to prevent or minimise the release of prescribed substances and that all substances released must be harmless. That means protecting the environment (or biosphere if you will) by not harming the health of living organisms or interfering with the ecological systems of which they form part.
However, as we go down the list the alarm bells begin to ring. Some of the obligations which would be required by this amendment would run counter to the true objectives of pollution control. Take the conservation of energy, for example. The Government's commitment to energy efficiency is
80
clear. That is why the White Paper contained a host of proposals to improve the efficiency with which energy is generated and used and encourage the use of energy from renewable sources.
That is not the main concern of pollution inspectorates. They will of course be interested in energy. But it is far more likely that they will wish to ensure that if something is being incinerated, for example, that the temperature is fierce enough to ensure that any harmful substances will be rendered harmless, say, during the industrial car painting process. In that process the particular temperature is important. That is why we have included a power at Clause 7(8) which will allow an authorisation to impose limits (upper or lower) on the amount of any substance (including energy) produced by or utilised in the process in any period.
We have to remember that this part of the Bill addresses systems of pollution control. That is why the requirement to include in an authorisation conditions relating to the development of the sustainable use of natural resources is also inappropriate. I do not argue with sustainable development. Indeed, the Government's approach to the environment begins with the recognition that it is mankind's duty to look after our world prudently and conscientiously. We have a moral duty to look after our planet and hand it on in good order to future generations. But that is not going to be achieved by stipulating that all the wood used in a process must be used from particular forests, or that all energy must be derived from renewable sources. If we tried, industry would soon run short of wood and energy; and HMIP would run out of inspectors who had the remotest idea about how to meet every environmental objective in one authorisation.
The noble Lord would have us also include in the authorisation conditions relating to the health and safety of people at work. We already have such an inspectorate in the form of the Health and Safety Executive to protect workers and the public from risks arising from work activities. HMIP and local authorities should not try to second guess the HSE, whose responsibilities and expertise these are. That is why we have provided explicitly in the Bill, at Clause 7(1), that no conditions shall be imposed in an authorisation for the purpose only of securing the health of persons at work.
The last item on the noble Lord's list—namely, compensation—is also addressed in the Bill, although in a slightly different way. The noble Lord's amendment would require the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation for damage caused by the authorised person. That term is a little vague. Far better to have the clear provision in the Bill at Clause 27 to give a power to remedy harm and cover the cost of that clean-up from any person convicted of the offence which caused the harm. Rather than having inadequate provision for compensation we have a provision in the Bill which will bring home to the operator and to the people who live around the process that where an offence is committed it may not

81
just be a question of paying a fine or compensation as an end of the matter, but of a continuing commitment to putting right the local environment.
In conclusion, the Bill already achieves those items in the amendment of the noble Lord which are necessary for these systems of pollution control. I hope that that explanation will enable the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was a curious reply. It did not comment on the really important issues contained in this series of amendments. It did not comment on the important argument, which is well accepted in the United States, that it is important to have a series of explicit principles which may be used by companies in forming their own management policies for the protection of the environment. There was no reference to that in the Minister's reply. The Minister chose instead to look specifically at three of the 10 items included in Amendment No. 38. Her comments on those three items, I am bound to say, were curious, contradictory and in conflict with the grand words which appear repeatedly in the White Paper.
The Minister objected to the inclusion among the conditions of authorisation of reference to the conservation of energy. The noble Baroness said—I am sure that I quote her correctly—that the conservation of energy was not the main concern of pollution inspectorates. Indeed, it is not their main concern. But unless it is part of their concern, unless they have regard to the conservation of energy in the judgments they make regarding the substances and processes to be controlled under integrated pollution control, the standards to be applied and the authorisations to be given, they are not doing their job. If the Minister and the Government do not understand that then they do not understand the fundamental relationship between energy conservation and the protection of the environment.
These are fundamental principles referred to over and over again. It is not good enough for the Minister to say in reply that it is not the main concern of pollution inspectorates. Of course it is not the main concern, but it must be a concern. Energy conservation is an essential element of any effective policy to preserve the environment.
The Minister next chose to criticise item (f),
"the minimisation of environmental health and safety risks to employees and to other persons".
The curious reason given for doing that was that somehow that would mean the pollution inspectorate would be second guessing the health and safety inspectorate. No such thing. There is no question of second guessing the health and safety inspectorate. What should be obvious—if it is not obvious to the Government it must be obvious to everybody else—is that many of the risks which occur in places of work to the health and safety of the people employed there are strongly related to the risks involved for people using the products being produced.
82
That is not a blinding scientific observation; it is a matter of fact. If a process is dangerous or producing a product which is dangerous, it will be dangerous not only to the people producing the product but also to the people using the product at the end of the process. The links between the health and safety of the people at work in factories and the environmental concerns of the pollution inspectorate must therefore be obvious. There cannot be any question but that these should be treated together. The pollution inspectorate should be working closely with the health and safety inspectorate to ensure that there is not a totally artificial division between one inspectorate and another. That is a fundamental principle of what we are trying to achieve in environmental protection legislation.
The Minister then moved over the question of,
"voluntary controls over the safety of goods and services produced for sale".
I was interested that she did not choose to mention that provision. The noble Baroness moved to item (h),
"the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation for damage caused by the person authorised, or his processes or products".
In support of her opposition to item (h) the Minister drew attention to Clause 27 of the Bill. I am not opposed to Clause 27; it is fine. However, it is one thing to provide a clause which incorporates the power of the chief inspector to remedy harm, and another to provide adequate protection for the prevention of harm from industrial processes. One can remedy harm after it has happened. However, one must provide for it to be part of the management tasks of a company to ensure that that harm does not occur in the first place.
I suggest to the House that the way to achieve that is for there to be adequate provision incorporated in the accounts of the company. A provision must be made for compensation if there is any risk. The auditors must say: "Have you made provision in your accounts for any compensation for damage that might be caused? Have you examined the actions of your servants? Have you examined the processes and products which your company is producing? Have you made adequate financial provision for them in the accounts?"
I suggest to the House that if adequate financial provision has not been made any subsequent provision for action by the chief inspector to remedy the harm will not be as effective as it might have been. Clause 27 closes the stable door after the horse has escaped. These amendments propose a more effective way for companies to take management action to avoid the conflict inherent in a legal regulatory system.
It is always a matter of amazement to me—speaking as a socialist as well as a businessman—that a government which claims to be capitalist, claims to be on the side of business, can be so ignorant regarding the way businesses are run, and the way that capitalist and private businesses are willing, anxious and able to take account of social responsibilities if given an opportunity to do so. One does not find the vast majority of businesses attempting to evade their responsibilities under fair employment legislation.

83
They know that the success of their business depends on the relationship that they have with their employees and they act accordingly.
Almost everybody acts in advance of fair employment legislation rather than reacting to it. One does not find the vast majority of businesses reacting to their customers as though they were enemies, and only responding when they are forced into line by draconian legislation. That is not the way it works. Most businesses recognise that their business life depends on their customers; they act to anticipate the needs and the welfare of their customers. That is the way business life goes on. It is the only way in which businesses can survive.
When it is suggested to a Conservative Government that we should adopt the principles already adopted by ethical investors in the United States, the Valdez principles, and incorporate them into the legislation in order to help businesses anticipate the needs of, and avoid the necessity for conflict in, environmental protection, that is the stage at which the Government say that the amendments are either not necessary or, if they are necessary, they are damaging. I find that deeply unconvincing. I am disappointed in the reaction of the Government to what was intended to be a helpful series of amendments, and I feel I should test the opinion of the House.
8.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 50.
pxb

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

John Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Meston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Parry, L.

Galpern, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton L.

Phillips, B.

[Teller]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rochester, L.

Hooson, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Seear, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Serota, B.

Jay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

84

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Tordoff, L.

White, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Underhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

Varley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Greenway, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brookes, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mills, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Milverton, L.

Cox, B.

Norrie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saint Levan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Denman, L.

Strange, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne E.

Faithfull, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ferrers, E.

Ullswater, V.

Gisborough, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.48 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 7A to 8A not moved.]
Clause 3 [Emission etc. limits and quality objectives]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8B:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("and shall make such regulations in relation to emissions from motor vehicles in accordance with subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 11A. Both amendments relate to the emission of pollution from vehicles. Amendment No. 8B refers to the making of regulations in relation to emissions from motor vehicles. The critical amendment is Amendment No. 11A which provides that any regulations made,
"shall have effect for the purpose of requiring the fitting of catalytic converters by 31st December 1992 to all new petrol driven motor vehicles".
Catalytic converters have been debated at length in this House on many occasions, not least during the consideration of this Bill. It is well known that catalytic converters do not completely get rid of all the damaging effects of emissions from motor vehicles. For example, they do not get rid of carbon dioxide which, although not the most concentrated emission, is probably the single most important one. Nevertheless, catalytic converters are important, at any rate to us, because it has been shown very clearly that with government encouragement the fitting of catalytic converters can be made to work.
I shall not provide advertising for any individual manufacturer but it is possible for any manufacturer to be supplied with catalytic converters. It is certainly possible for all motor vehicles to be produced now in

85
such a way that catalytic convertors can be retro-fitted —I believe that is the correct phrase—without undue expense. The Government's White Paper is strong on that principle In paragraph 10.3 the Government talk about preventing pollution at source. They acknowledge teat transport contributes about 20 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. In my view they quite rightly cite the success of the Government's pricing policy for unleaded petrol.
It is certainly true that, by a discriminating pricing policy, one can reduce the proportion of vehicles which use leaded petrol and therefore reduce the emission of airborne lead into the atmosphere. I understand that the effect of this policy has been that the amount of airborne lead released into the atmosphere has been reduced by about 50 per cent. since the early 1980s. Yet the Government are not taking any comparable action concerning catalytic convertors.
In paragraph 11.54 of the White Paper there is reference to the EC directive that all new vehicles should be capable of using unleaded petrol. That is fine. Are the Government going to confirm that? Do they intend to act on that in accordance with the European Community directive? In the White Paper the Government say that they are going to introduce changes in the MoT test to control emissions from vehicles. Can the Minister say when the Government are going to do that? I am asking these questions seriously because the Government have made these statements in the White Paper. They should he prepared to answer on the Floor of the House specific questions that arise directly from the White Paper.
The Government say in the White Paper that they intend to encourage the operators of car fleets to buy cars fitted with catalytic convertors. How are they going to do that? Will there be some kind of financial encouragement and, if so, what is it going to be? Will there be some kind of prohibition on the fleet-buying of can. without catalytic convertors? If that is so, how is that prohibition to be applied?
Not so much in the White Paper, but in government statements, there is a great deal said about larger and smaller cars and cars of different capacity. Is there any good reason why catalytic convertors should not be fitted to all cars? I see no reason why they should not be. That is the reason why the amendment refers specifically to all new petrol driven cars.
There is no question but that the intentions are good. However, the Government hesitate in putting those intentions into effect. The section headed Action for Individuals reflects a constant theme throughout the White Paper. There is action for somebody else but no action by the Government. The Government say in that section that travellers should choose cars fitted with a. catalyst and use unleaded petrol. Unless some positive e action is taken comparable to that in relation to unleaded petrol—and that may be the way to deal with it—to encourage catalytic convertors, then we shall not achieve that improvement. We have the opportunity to do that. We also have the Government's statement of intent that it will be done, though we have no action. We have the opportunity in
86
this Bill to achieve the action required. That is what these amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 11 A, actually provide.
When we talked about transport matters in Committee we were told that this was not the right Bill for them and that they were issues for the transport department. That argument will not survive the publication of the White Paper. The White Paper quite properly takes into account the environmental effects of the activities of a large number of departments, including energy and transport. Indeed, when speaking in support of the White Paper, the Minister, when replying to the first amendment moved this afternoon, made a virtue of the fact that the White Paper gives such a comprehensive coverage of all aspects of environmental pollution.
If that is the case and it is the responsibility of a White Paper produced by a group of Secretaries of State whose lead Minister is Secretary of State for the Environment, there is no good reason why this legislation, which is essential for environmental protection, should not be included in this Bill. That is why we are moving this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, the Government can take pride in the fact that they have made a very sensible decision in making a tax concession on lead-free petrol. Almost overnight the filling stations in this country were suddenly selling lead-free petrol. Until then it was quite difficult to obtain. I changed my car from a British-made Mini which could not run on lead-free petrol to a Ford which does run on lead-free petrol. Now I read that, as from a date which we shall soon reach, no new cars will be manufactured that do not run on lead-free petrol.
I also understand that this country has the capacity to produce more catalytic convertors than any other manufacturing country in the world. In fact, we export them all over the world. We are the largest manufacturers of catalytic convertors. Therefore, it seems absolutely right that the Government should take heed of the success that they had with lead-free petrol and do the same with catalytic convertors. I do not take a hard and fast position on the date 31st December 1992 because that might be a little too soon. However, if the Government said 1993, then I believe that would be acceptable. It is possible that a little longer time is needed. If we are really serious about this matter we should be going down that path. Having had a success with lead-free petrol the Government should do the same concerning catalytic convertors. That is why I support this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised a very important matter. When we hear the reply from the Front Bench I hope we shall learn that there is no great disagreement between him and the Government on this matter. I do not know whether the method he suggests is technically the best one. However, I see no reason why the matter should not be dealt with in this Bill. If it is not dealt with in this Bill it will have to be dealt with in some other primary legislation in a later Session. In this Bill we purport to be dealing with integrated pollution control and air control by local authorities. Therefore,

87
I cannot see that it would be inappropriate to deal with this matter now. It has to be dealt with sooner or later.
As I say, I do not know whether the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is the best way to do it, but it does not appear to me to be entirely unreasonable. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, these amendments are unnecessary and could well put us in breach of the European Community directives that cover this subject. Vehicle emissions would be brought within the purview of the Bill, but there is sufficient statutory control for controlling them through regulations under the Road Traffic Act 1988. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already made regulations that will apply the tightest standards possible to new cars by the end of 1992.
We are constrained by the existing Community directives in this area. Although the directives will mean the fitment of catalysts to all new cars, they are defective in two particular areas. First, the standards for medium-sized cars, which are those between 1400 cc and 2000 cc, are not strict enough to require the fitting of the most effective three-way catalysts. Secondly, these same medium-sized cars are not caught by the standards until 1st October 1993. We regard that as too late.
That is why we are keen to get agreement in Europe on the Commission's proposals to amend the vehicle emissions directives so that uniformly tight standards are applied to all car sizes from the end of 1992. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be pressing for an agreement when the environment council meets at the end of this month. I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will bring forward regulations to give effect to any agreement as soon as possible.
Regulations which came into effect on 1st October require all newly-manufactured petrol engine vehicles to be capable of running on unleaded petrol. Unleaded petrol is a success story. More than 35 per cent. of all petrol sales in the United Kingdom are now unleaded.
The Government are pressing the Community to adopt the strictest possible standards for diesel engines fitted to trucks and buses. The latest Commission proposal is not nearly tough enough. We believe that the standards and test procedures to be applied in the United States in 1994 should also be adopted by the European Community. Finally, the Government are now consulting on the details of the emissions test that is to be added to the annual MoT test for cars. This will put us in the forefront in Europe, with the Germans and others, when it comes to in-service checking. We are encouraging the Commission to bring forward proposals to require the whole of the Community to follow our lead.
In my answer I believe that I have met all the objectives of the amendments. I want the whole House
88
to know that we are absolutely determined that these objectives will be achieved. I believe therefore that the amendment is unnecessary. We share word for word the objective of the noble Lord.
9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—and perhaps I may say that I welcome what she has said—can she make it abundantly plain that there is already statutory power to make such a regulation? Is there a statutory obligation to do so?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that there is statutory power to make regulations but we are bound by the European directives. I can say in advance of those directives that we are ready and committed to achieving what is called for by the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not convinced that the Minister's answer meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The distinction he was making was between statutory powers, which the Minister has quite convincingly said are available, and statutory obligations. The European Commission issues directives. The Government then take steps to implement them, whether by regulation, if possible, or by primary legislation. In other words, there is a gap between the issuing of a directive and the date of implementation by the British Government.
The most extreme examples arose on drinking water quality debated by the House last year. I shall not go over that painful ground again. By this amendment we seek to ensure that when the European Commission makes directives, achieving, we hope, all that we want to achieve in these amendments—I have no reason to suppose that that will not happen—the Government will not then say, "We agree with the objective of the directives. When there is a gap in the legislative programme we shall find an occasion to give the Secretary of State power to implement those directives". That is what I fear will happen. I am not convinced that it has been controverted by the Minister's reply.
I am always deeply grateful for any support from the noble Lord, Lord Renton. To be told that my amendment does not seem to be entirely unreasonable is the highest praise that I can expect from him. He has made some valuable points which ought not to be ignored by the Government. I gladly give way to him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and for his kind words. Does he not remember that our country is a member of the EC and is bound by directives issued by the EC and by regulations made by the Council of Ministers and approved by the European Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do indeed recall that. The noble Lord will recall that when we debated the Water Bill last year we found that directives had been issued. Targets had been set and dates had been set by the European Community but the Government had completely failed to do anything about them. In 1981 the European Commission in a directive set the Government a target of 1985 in order

89
to improve drinking water quality to a specific standard. In 1989 we debated the fact that the Government had not done so. It is one thing to be bound by European Community directives: it is another thing to do something about it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If it is helpful to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we are obliged to introduce the directives. We halve no choice but to introduce them. But I am saying more than that. We are pressing for the directives. We are absolutely committed to implementing them. We do not need primary legislation. We have all the powers to make regulations as soon as is possible. We are pressing for them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, when he responded to a similar debate in Committee, had given the same kind of assurance. At that time he said that although we were committed to tough new standards a distinction had to be made between different sizes of car. In her reply this evening the noble Baroness said something different. She said that the same standard should apply to all sizes of car. I find that a welcome advance. On the basis of what she said, one must hope that we have made enough progress to justify my asking leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dean of Beswick moved Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 8C: Page 5, line 16, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall, from time to time after the mating of regulations under subsection (1) above, lay before parliaiment a report setting out an environmental assessment of the activities of each Department of State in relation to such standards, objectives or requirements for processes or substances as may have been prescribed in such regulations.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide a mechanism whereby the Government's undertakings to monitor and ameliorate the environmental effects of their own activities may be brought before Parliament for regular scrutiny and verification. Chapter 18 of the White Paper, regretfully, is not included in the executive summary. Only in the full document does one find the following statement:
"Environment policy affects all Government Departments: most or all of their policies have an effect on the environment, as does the way in which they manage the buildings and land for which they are responsible".
There follow a number of promises as to how this responsibility will be reflected in government practice. These include continuing the co-ordinating machinery involved in preparing the White Paper, including a standing committee of Cabinet Ministers; designating a Minister in each department to be responsible for considering the environmental implications of all that department's policies and spending programmes and for following up relevant parts of the White Paper; annual plans to include action to follow up the White Paper and any other initiatives; and a more systematic approach within government to the appraisal of environmental costs and benefits before decisions are
90
taken. These principles are entirely admirable and demonstrate a clear intention that the greening of the Government is intended to be a long-term commitment. However, they are not underpinned by legislation and appear to he isolated from Parliament, to which this Government are, and any successor government would be, constitutionally accountable. The Bill gives an immediate opportunity to write the Government's stewardship into the statute book. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure what useful function this amendment is intended to achieve. Once environmental standards, quality objectives and process and substance requirements have been set by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State it will be incumbent on everyone, within government as well as elsewhere, to meet those obligations. Let there be no misunderstanding about the duty on government departments in this respect. Our proposals on the application of the Bill's provisions to the Crown in Clause 149 have put beyond doubt our determination that all operators of prescribed processes, including the Crown, will fully comply with tough authorisation conditions designed to achieve the maximum practicable environmental protection.
Although departments of state cannot be prosecuted, the High Court, or in Scotland the Court of Session, may declare unlawful any acts or omissions by them under Part I of the Bill. Government operators or processors will have to comply with such declarations. The duties on them and their compliance record will be placed on public register, just as they will be for all other operators of prescribed processes. I see no need therefore for a separate report to your Lordships' House and another place.
The amendment does not ask for reports on the records of other groups of operators, and rightly so. Our public registers will already provide the data. So why should government departments be singled out? Their record will be known, as well as that of the other industries. Any inadequacies in their performance will be on public record. No more is needed. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall not press the amendment. However, I am not completely satisfied with the Minister's reply. Having been involved over a number of years with legislation from various governments, I have always accepted the principle that unless a provision is included in a Bill and declared as such it is not a commitment.
I trust that noble Lords will forgive me for introducing a little sourness at this stage, but the present Government are not unknown for going back on some of the promises that they have made—some of which were much more severe and binding than anything that has been mentioned tonight. I only have to point out one example as an indication of what I mean. Successive Secretaries of State said both in another place and in your Lordships' House that the money raised by council house sales would be given back to the local authorities which sold them in order to build new council houses. Unfortunately, the noble

91
Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, is not in the Chamber at present, but I seem to recall that he is on record as being the Minister who gave a copper-bottomed guarantee to local authorities in that respect. However, as soon as the Government thought it no longer necessary to keep to a total copper-bottomed commitment they reneged on it.
I trust that the Minister will understand that I am not launching a personal attack upon her because of the reply she gave. But, as I said, I happen to believe that if a provision is not written on the face of a Bill it is certainly not hard and fast. If a course of action has to be adopted in this instance, I believe that it must be written into the Bill and not merely mentioned in government promises. I have put my feelings on record and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 19, leave out from ("prescribe") to first ("the") in line 21 and insert ("standard limits for —

(i)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 32, 47 and 48. The first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 9 and 11, simply clarify the drafting of Clause 3. As currently drafted this provides for the prescribing of standards of limits. The amendments express this as the prescribing of standard limits, which is what it should be.
Amendment No. 32, to Schedule 1, clarifies that it is the Secretary of State who may prescribe the manner in which applications for hearings of appeals are made. Amendment No. 47, to Clause 15, clarifies what is already made explicit elsewhere in the Bill; namely, that appeals cannot be made against directed decisions of the enforcing authority.
Finally, Amendment No. 48, to Clause 19, settles beyond peradventure that the powers of the various authorities concerned to request information relate only to the discharge of their own functions and not to the discharge of those of any of the other authorities.
I commend these amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 23, leave out ("limits on").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11A and 12 not moved.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 29, at end insert:
("(2A) Before the publication of any regulations concerning emissions to air under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall publish a national strategy for the conservation of energy, including:

(a) measures to promote and encourage the development of combined heat and power schemes by local authorities;

92

(b)measures to promote and encourage the development by local authorities of the production of energy from landfill sites;

(c)the promotion by local authorities and other persons of energy conservation and insulation in domestic premises;

(d)measures to develop improved use of energy and good practice in industrial and commercial premises; and

(e)the development of public awareness of the implications of energy conservation for the environment.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another amendment which attempts to put into the Bill what the Government stated in the White Paper to be their intent. Under the Bill pollution control relates basically to dirty factory chemical plant, and so forth. It does not cover two aspects of global warming: transport and the use of energy. The amendment calls for a national strategy for energy conservation. At the same time as setting emission limits for industry, the Secretary of State should establish a national strategy for energy conservation.
The amendment fills a gap in the Bill and gives legislative backing to the proposals contained in the White Paper. The amendment is divided into five headings, the most important of which is (a) which relates to combined heat and power schemes. That system has tremendous potential for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is used in about 500 industrial plants in this country and covers about 2 per cent. of electricity output. The only large-scale CHP system in this country is in Nottingham. It is based on burning refuse.
The White Paper plans a doubling of capacity from 1,000 megawatts to 2,000 megawatts over the next five years. It is estimated that that would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent. It is also estimated that the heat loss from United Kingdom power stations is enough to heat every home in Britain. As a nation we are backward in installing district heating systems. They should at least be installed in all major new developments. That cannot be done without government finance for local authorities, which also need special borrowing powers to fund energy conservation. Combined heat and power could help more than any other method to reduce our demands on the energy industry.
Another possibility is to tap the energy contained in methane gas from landfill sites. That would serve a dual purpose. Not only would it give us electricity but it would prevent a leakage into the atmosphere from one of the most lethal gases. It is estimated that there are 438 sites available for potential methane tapping in this country, and only 24 have so far been exploited.
The amendment also asks for conservation in and insulation of domestic premises. Until recently, insulation grants were available to householders. They have now been reduced and are available only to those on income support. Nevertheless, it is estimated that with proper insulation domestic carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by 39 per cent. Another way of saving electricity which the Government should take on board is to publicise the use of energy

93
efficient light bulbs. I was told that if the whole country used energy efficient light bulbs we might save the output of two power stations. However, that may be an overestimate. To publicise them and persuade consumers to take them up, the Government should consider consulting our EC partners because they must Face similar problems. Perhaps we could consider zero rating energy efficient light bulbs for VAT, thereby saving much wasted electricity.
The White Paper and also this amendment talk about conservation and insulation in industrial and commercial premises. In particular the White Paper speaks of the government estates and special mention is mad, of educational establishments. I wish to add one other aspect that the Government should consider: the hospitals. I was a regional chairman of an authority and we were encouraged to conserve energy. but we did not have the money to put in thermostatically controlled heating and we were not given the funds to do it. I believe that the Government must give at least a bridging loan to such establishments to allow them to implement proper heating control.
Above all, we must make certain that there is public awareness of what people can do for themselves. Here, the Energy Efficiency Office has a large part to play. It is therefore with great sadness that we heard in 1986–87 and 1988–89 that the funding for the Energy Efficiency Office was reduced. In this House the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, replying in a debate, said that the reason for the proposed reduction was a direct result of the successes achieved in the earlier campaign. I do not believe that we could say that the success was so great. I am glad to see in the White Paper that the Government now propose to increase the funding for the Energy Efficiency Office.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a proper national strategy for energy conservation. It would involve action by individual consumers, the development with industry of energy -efficient practices, combined heat and power, electricity generation from landfill and a public education programme on the benefits of energy efficiency. However, without clear national targets for the reductions in energy use and the resultant greenhouse gases, emission limits set for industry under the Bill cannot be clearly targeted and geared to the alleviation of global warming. Again I hope that the Government can accept this amendment, because it was taken almost verbatim from the White Paper. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to add my support to the amendment and I recognise the able way in which it has been moved. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was in some ways too kind to the White Paper. It is not so much that the amendment reproduces what the White Paper says, but rather that it reproduces what the White Paper would like to appear to have said without having committed itself to anything practical.
Time after time, as we look through the White Paper for evidence of commitment to energy conservation, we find a recognition of the problem
94
but, as the noble Baroness said, no practical action to do anything about it. She gave the clearest possible example when she described the work of the Energy Efficiency Office, pointing out that it has in many ways been run down and underlining the ambivalent attitude that the Government have towards it. What they really think is that the work should be undertaken by private industry rather than by government, although they do not come out quite so clearly as to admit it.
It is all very well to have an intention to develop energy labelling of buildings. However, what is required is not just an intention to have energy labelling of buildings nor to say that they should be able to be incorporated into building regulations—that is what Annex C says: there should actually he detailed proposals for including energy labelling of buildings in building regulations. That could be done by regulation. It does not require primary legislation. It requires consultation, but it could be done within a period of 12 months from now. lf, in responding to the amendment, the Minister says that the Government are prepared to agree to that and that building regulations will be amended accordingly, that will be an advance on the White Paper and it will be a real improvement.
It is all very well the White Paper saying that the Government will promote wider use of combined heat and power to make use of waste heat from electricity generation. It is fine to identify a potential of combined heat and power of 2,000 megawatts by the end of the century. But what is required is not just promotion and recognition of a potential. There must be a practical means of achieving the target. That is not in the White Paper. As usual, the White Paper is completely ineffective in that respect.
The noble Baroness referred to the difficulties of regional health authorities in undertaking energy conservation work because they do not have the money up front—that is when it is needed—to undertake the capital investment to save energy costs in the future. Exactly the same is true in local authority housing and in public buildings throughout the country. You need to have approval for the capital expenditure now in order to make the energy savings in the years to come. The Government show no signs of understanding that and no signs of recognising that they must give specific capital authority in order to produce energy-efficient buildings. Why is that not being included, for example, in this Bill as an amendment to the 1988 Housing Act? It could perfectly well be included. I offer that as a free suggestion to the Government. I have not even drafted an amendment on the subject, but it could be done. It would be evidence of the Government's good intent.
In almost every respect, the White Paper points out the modest amount of work that has already been done for energy conservation and things that could be done in the future. But it does not say that the Government will take any positive action. To that extent, it would be highly desirable if the Government accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Reay: My Lords, no one doubts the value of energy efficiency measures as a contribution to our objectives in improving the environment. I welcome the opportunity to confirm the Government's commitment to helping the nation improve its performance in that area. But the amendment before us could lead one to assume that the Government do not already have a strategy for improving energy efficiency. Our past record and the White Paper on the environment demonstrate that that is far from the case.
Central to our strategy is the Energy Efficiency Office which works to encourage the adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements both for economic and environmental reasons. Energy savings now worth over £500 million per year are being realised by consumers as a direct result of the EEO's programmes since 1983, which have also led to a high level of general awareness of the value of energy efficiency. The proposals in the White Paper represent another phase in the work of the EEO which will, I am sure, continue to build on that impressive performance.
The strategy includes a new ministerial committee, chaired by the Secretary of State for Energy, which will maintain interest in energy efficiency and raise its profile still further. The committee will monitor the Government's current programmes and progress on other initiatives announced in the White Paper, including a promotional drive on high efficiency lighting, proposals for common schemes of appliance labelling and minimum standards in the EC, and a new scheme of project management grants to assist with the implementation of energy efficiency measures in industry and commerce. Other departments will play their part too. For example, the MOT test will in future check on engine tuning.
That is all in addition to what is happening already, much of it in the specific areas which the noble Lord and the Baroness mentioned. In the domestic sector the new scheme of grants towards the cost of basic insulation measures in low income households, the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, will begin in January 1991. It will build on the success of existing community insulation projects, which have insulated over 750,000 low-income homes.
In industry and commerce the EEO's main scheme is the best practice programme, which provides independent and authoritative advice and information on energy efficiency, as well as some R&D support. The best practice programme will also continue to promote the use of combined heat and power, mentioned by the noble Baroness, which is a highly fuel-efficient technology that generates electricity and puts to good use the heat which would otherwise be wasted. The programme will aim to ensure that an identified potential of a further 2,000 megawatts of CHP capacity will be achieved by the year 2000—representing a doubling of capacity.
The Government also have a substantial programme to promote the use of methane from landfill sites. They have spent some £2 million on research,
96
development and demonstration projects to encourage its exploitation as a fuel. The Electricity Act 1989 encourages electricity generation from non-fossil fuels through the introduction of the non-fossil fuel obligation. This will provide an unprecedented opportunity for renewable energy sources, such as landfill gas, to establish themselves in the electricity market. The Government are considering what more can be done to reduce emissions of methane from landfill sites by encouraging its use as an energy source. They are also supporting action by local authorities over the next five years at some 1,000 landfill sites requiring remedial work. Some of these will be suitable for methane recovery for heat and power.
In summary, the Government already have an effective and developing strategy on energy efficiency, which will be kept under close scrutiny by the new ministerial committee which meets for the first time later this month. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am very sad that the Government have decided that my amendment is not necessary. I thought that the Minister's reply was rather complacent as regards what we have achieved. He said that combined heat and power capacity will be doubled by the year 2000. So far as I know —and I stand to be corrected—we have only one large district scheme in this country, in Nottingham. I come from Sweden, where half of Stockholm is heated by a district heating system using combined heat and power. We have a long way to go. To double the 500 small units in this country by the year 2000 is not making the best use of its wasted heat, which just goes into the air.
I should have thought that the Government would welcome the amendment. Despite the fact that they have, I admit, introduced certain measures through the Energy Efficiency Office to educate the public about the need for energy conservation, I should have thought that the Government would welcome having the amendment written into the Bill, particularly as all the proposals, except for the zero-rating of electric light bulbs, are measures that can be introduced in this country. On other occasions when I have raised such issues with the Government the answer has always been that they will do it when there is agreement within the EC. None of these proposals has to be agreed by the EC. I should have thought, therefore, that they were eminently suitable for inclusion in the Bill.
However, as usual I have not been given any concessions, and at this late hour I do not propose to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert:
("(3A) In prescribing by regulation any standards under subsection (2) above in respect of emissions into the air from

97
electricity generating stations, or in establishing by regulation limits as to such substances in the air under subsection (5) below, the Secretary of State shall take into account—

(a)the relative environmental impact of renewable and fossil fuel sources of electricity;

(b)the desirability of providing, or of securing the provision (whether by pricing or otherwise) of financial incentives to such renewable sources; and

(c)the availability of electricity supplies from renewable sources.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 14 deals with a related subject, but one which deserves serious attention in its own right. The amendment is concerned with renewable energy resources. I am very pleased to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for the amendment.
The amendment would make sure that emissions to the atmosphere from electricity generating stations fell within the ambit of regulations under Clause 3. We assume that these power stations will be prescribed polluters for the purposes of Part I. I understood the noble Baroness to say in response to an earlier amendment that this is one part of integrated pollution control which will not be delayed into 1992 but that large power stations will be brought within the scope of the regulations in 1991. I very much welcomed that statement.
We go on to say that when setting emission limits for carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, they should be considered within the context of a policy for looking at the relative environmental effects of renewable energy compared with fossil fuel energy In response to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred to the non-fossil fuel obligation under the 1989 Electricity Act. He was quite right to refer to that measure but it is necessary to remind the House of the amounts involved. The non-fossil fuel obligation refers to only 102 megawatts of electricity by 1998. Even if we talk about matters which could be the subject of regulations under the non-fossil fuel obligation between now and 1998, that would still add only a further 600 megawatts to what is being produced from non-fossil fuel sources in that eight-year period.
However, the White Paper refers to 1,000 megawatts by the year 2000. We look for confirmation that the Government see that figure as a minimum rather than a maximum and that they view the non-fossil fuel obligation in proper context. The fact of the matter is that in other parts the 1989 Electricity Act makes it more difficult for renewable energy, not by banning it but because, in order to assist in privatisation, the Electricity Act writes off the capital costs c f the former CEGB plant; in other words, the plant of National Power and PowerGen. That means that renewable energy, which has to be capital intensive and involve capital expenditure, is competing on unfair terms with fossil fuel energy produced by National Power and PowerGen. That has never been contradicted by the Government, nor have there been any proposals to rectify this completely new element of discrimination against renewable energy sources.
The Department of Energy's 1988 strategy statement provides, even by the year 2005, for a
98
maximum of 25 per cent. of our energy use coming from renewable sources, and that only if all the development projects which are under consideration are completed and exploited. All the evidence about renewable energy resources, whether it be wind power, wave power or any of the other methods that are being suggested, such as the burning of methane gas and so on, indicates that any one of those sources could well account for, say, 20 per cent. of our energy resources. The total maximum potential must be considerably higher than the 25 per cent. mentioned in the Department of Energy strategy. It would be interesting to know from the Government what revision of the 1988 Department of Energy strategy is planned and whether there will be any improvement in the situation for renewable energy.
I do not underestimate the difficulties. Yesterday on the radio I heard the Secretary of State for the Environment talking with Open University energy conservation scientists about the difficulties of wind power. It is true that we do not want all our hillsides to be covered with windmills, making the noises that windmills make. But that does not mean that in the right places—some of them perhaps offshore—there is not considerably more scope than is at present being considered for wind, wave and tidal power.
At the moment the scales are weighted against renewable energy sources rather than loaded in their favour. This amendment goes some way toward correcting that situation and encourages the Government to take renewable energy more seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has read what was said in Committee. I therefore shall not repeat what I said. However, nothing seems to have developed with regard to the discrimination against renewables because of a capital write off, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred.
Farmers and landowners considering diversifying into renewable energy factories—in particular wind power—are still in the dark. I should like to ask my noble friend the following questions. First, is it true that 90 per cent. of the non-fossil fuel obligation will go into nuclear produced power? That leaves only a minuscule 10 per cent. for renewables. Secondly, the recent White Paper produced by the Department of the Environment appears to support renewable energy other than nuclear because renewable energy is environmentally friendly whereas nuclear energy should not be so classified because of its decommissioning problems.
However, the Department of the Environment seems to be at odds with the Department of Energy which, according to a recent report in The Times, does not intend to accept any more applications with regard to wind power.
As one who has an ideal site, I am totally confused by the double talk. Will the Government offer incentives and encouragement for farmers and landowners in suitable areas? I fully understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We do

99
not want the whole country covered with windmills. But will the Government look again at wind power schemes?
In that context will my noble friend say whether the Ministry of Agriculture would be prepared to consider claims by farmers under the farm diversification scheme for plans to diversify into renewable energy, in particular wind power?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. I have recently returned from Denmark where I stayed at Roskilde. It is the equivalent of Canterbury and Westminster Abbey rolled into one. Two or three miles outside this historic and beautiful town I came across a very large wind generator. It was at least one hundred feet high with a proportionate span of rotor blades. It operated virtually silently. I thought that it fitted extremely well into the rather attractive landscape.
I believe that this is a practical amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the purpose behind the amendment, namely, to reduce emissions from electricity generating plant, is on the face of it unobjectionable. However, the amendment seeks the impossible on the one hand and the already available on the other.
While I have every sympathy with the underlying objective of trying to give maximum encouragement to renewable sources of energy, we must be realistic. Such sources could make only a relatively minor contribution to electricity supply over the next decade or so. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to take into account the direct quantitative comparison of the differing environmental implications of the various energy sources. The fact is that this is at present simply not possible.
We should not be under any illusion that renewable sources can have significant environmental impacts of their own. A tidal barrage scheme or river dam can profoundly affect the ecology of the surrounding area. Wind generated electricity relies on equipment which is visually intrusive and noisy and which more than likely needs to be sited in the most sensitive parts of the landscape, and so on.
The generation of electricity from fossil fuels to meet the demands of consumers is a major source, but not the only one, of the pollutants which cause acid rain; namely, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The UK has accordingly committed itself, along with its European partners, to reduce acid emissions from all large plant under the large combustion plant directive. We have undertaken to bring down emissions of SO2 by 60 per cent. by 2003, and of NOx by 30 per cent. by 1998 based on 1980 levels. Therefore, that problem is recognised and significant action is already in hand to do something about it.
Power generation from fossil fuels is also a source of carbon dioxide, one of the gases which leads to enhanced global warming. CO2 is produced whenever carbon-based fuel is burned, from the domestic coal or log fire to the motor vehicle. While power stations are
100
an obvious source of such pollution because they are big, they represent only about a third of UK CO2 emissions and a fifth of our contribution to global warming. The Government recognise the potential impact of our Co2 emissions and have announced their intention, if other nations will take similar action, of returning our emissions of the gas to 1990 levels by 2005. That will not be an easy task and will entail costs to the economy, but we believe that it is realistic and achievable.
The amendment calls for the balancing of the relative environmental impact of renewable and fossil fuel sources of electricity. Work is in hand in the UK and internationally to devise methodologies to assess the full range of environmental impacts of energy technologies. It will be a long and difficult task, not least because of the international nature of some of the issues. The global warming potential of carbon dioxide is an international problem, with potentially worldwide effects. We can say at present that a windmill will produce less CO2 than a power station but we cannot yet say to what extent the power station's CO2 represents an environmental threat. That is not least because that threat may manifest itself on the other side of the world.
How can one value and compare the possible inundation of low-lying Pacific islands in 50 years' time; or, to take a different example, the possible disturbance to migrating birds from a tidal barrage scheme? I will not suggest that it cannot be done, but the fact is that it cannot be done yet or for some time to come.
I now turn to the second part of the amendment. The Government are already encouraging the growth of renewable sources of energy via the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation on electricity suppliers under the Electricity Act 1989. An order was recently laid covering the first tranche of renewable generation to receive a subsidy under the NFFO and there will be further tranches during the next few years. As was recently announced in the White Paper, the Government will be working towards increasing renewable electricity generation tenfold to 1,000 megawatts by the end of the century. The need for this support under the NFFO illustrates one of the fundamental problems for renewables—many of them are not yet economically competitive with conventional generation.
The hoped-for tenfold increase in renewables by 2,000 (excluding conventional hydroelectricity) will still provide only about a further 2 per cent. of UK needs. While there is no doubt that renewables will make a valuable and increasing contribution to our electricity supplies, that contribution will build up slowly over the next few years.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked several questions. I should like to study them and write to him I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was a peculiarly unsatisfactory reply. It was almost as though the Minister had not heard the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Hylton, let alone anything that I had said. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, gave the Minister plenty of warning about his anxiety as regards renewable energy. He asked the specific question, which he asked previously, about whether grants would be available to farmers who use this form of diversification. I believe that he deserved an answer on the spot rather than be told that he would be written to afterwards. It was not as though it was not obvious that the question would be asked again.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, repeated the statement about noisy wind generators. He did not appear to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. At least he could have asked for more evidence as to why there are virtually silent wind generators in Denmark but not in this country, if indeed there is such evidence. I should have thought that more consideration could have been shown to noble Lords in that reply.
Quite apart from that, there are fundamental defects in the Minister's answer. When the amendment asks for an assessment of the relative environmental impact of renewable and fossil fuel sources of electricity, it is no good the Minister replying that that is not possible. It is no good him brushing off an intended comparison between submerging a South Sea island and damage to the ecology from estuarial work.
If there are difficulties in making such an estimate, those difficulties are in conception. They would not be overcome by greater work and more detailed study in the next few years. Either it is possible, in which case it is possible now with all the defects of making environmental impact assessments, or it will never be possible. However, to say that it is not possible now, without giving any reason for that statement, is not a good enough reply to the debate raised in your Lordships' House.
Environmental impact assessments—a well-established principle within the Department of the Environment—have for many years been making comparisons between things which may be thought to be unlike one from the other. Alternative developments for a particular piece of land have been looked at and it has been decided that one sort of development is less environmentally acceptable than another. Of course there is an element of judgment in that which nobody denies. What one person likes visually and aesthetically will be different from another. Nobody will reconcile that difference. However, there must be a way of assigning values to those matters where a choice needs to be made. If we are not able to do that, under certain circumstances so be it. However, the Government seem to be saying that they are not willing to do that.
Again, the issue of the write off of the capital of CEGB plant and, therefore, the write off of PowerGen and National Power investment is not new. That point
102
was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and my noble friend Lord Williams in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, raised the further point about the shortness of the contracts available for renewable energy. The noble Lord opposite made no attempt to reply to that question although he had had plenty of notice of it. I believe that it is a discourtesy to the House for a reply to be read out without any concession whatever to the thrust of the debate and for there to be no adequate answers to the questions raised, not for the first time, by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I shall not divide the House on this occasion but, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, we must return to this matter. We hope that there will then be a better response from Government and a better awareness of their obligations to this House in this debate.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am now in a position to answer the question raised by my noble friend Lord Stanley as to whether funds will be available for wind power schemes under the farm diversification scheme. The answer is: no. Grants are for projects which call on the skills of the farmer and which relate to the normal activities of the farm and farm facilities. Industrial power generation would not be covered by that.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that further study and experience may enable us to discover what will be the consequences as regards certain matters while others require valued judgments. I believe that as regards certain cause and effect relationships—for example, what exactly is the effect of certain wind schemes on migratory birds—we do not know as much as we need to. I take his point that on certain conceptual aspects, political judgments have to be made.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with great reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert:
("The best practicable environment option must be included in the consideration of any regulations covering the release of substances into any media.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I see that my Amendment No. 15 has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 36, 41 to 43 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I do not mind the enjoinment. It is for the noble Lord opposite to express his view when I finish speaking.
Perhaps at the outset I could thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for a series of consultations and exchange of letters during the Summer Recess on a number of issues, most of which do not appear as amendments on the Marshalled List as they have already been dealt with. Others do appear and this amendment is one of those.
The purpose of integrated pollution control is surely to achieve the best environmental result weighing up the benefits of discharge to land, water or air according to the type of industrial operation and

103
the environmental circumstance. In the last analysis there should be one body and one body alone to make that judgment. In my view that should be Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, which the Government consistently promised shall be the one-stop shop to which businesses should address their questions.
When we discussed earlier this afternoon the group of amendments which included Amendment No. 5, the Minister said that HMIP must determine the various levels and the actions to be taken. As this clause is written it appears that specific pollution control authorities may be able to overrule HMIP. In that regard I mention the National Rivers Authority, which takes a somewhat narrower view.
In an exchange of correspondence on 21st September my noble friend Lady Blatch wrote to me concerning the best practicable environmental option. The letter continued,
"It is true as you say that HMIP will need to take account of the NRA's conditions relating to releases to water, bearing in mind water quality objectives under last year's Water Act. But HMIP will need to take account additionally of air quality standards, the objectives achievable through the use of BATNEEC, our international obligations, and indeed any plan made under clause 3 of the Bill. Marrying these objectives together will not necessarily be easy, but then I would not expect a decision on the BPEO to be reached lightly".
Quite so. That is the point. As the Bill is currently drafted it is not specific in that regard. I believe that it should be if the Government fully accept and intend to develop the principle of best practicable environmental option. The current wording of this part of Clause 3 makes no mention of any consideration to be given to the relationship between the various environmental media. That is when prescribing either standards or the requirements for inclusion in regulations.
I believe that that undermines the authority of HMIP which we understand is in pole position. I venture to suggest that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, support Amendment No. 15 in perhaps different ways to those described, but in general terms underlying my suggestion.
I apologise to the House in that I believe there is an error in my amendment. The last word—"media"—should be "medium", but if that is so it is an easy matter to put right. I commend my amendment to the House. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for agreeing that my amendments should be discussed with his. I agree that to a considerable extent my amendments support his amendment, which, if I may say so, is a neat little amendment. It goes very well in Clause 3.
My amendments relate to Clause 7, which covers conditions for authorisation. They seek to impose a degree of harmony into the way in which BATNEEC (best available technology not entailing excessive cost) and BPEO (best practical environmental option) are
104
used in the course of the Bill because we believe that at present there is still an inconsistency between their use.
This is not just a matter of words. These are real differences which have an effect on the way in which the Bill operates; otherwise we would not be putting forward these amendments. Noble Lords will recall that the concept of BATNEEC is a formulation to fit in with European Community legislation, whereas the concept of BPEO comes from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. It is easy to talk as if they were relatively unimportant differences and as if they were alternatives to be used at random, but that is not the case in practice. The real issue we should be considering in these amendments is whether we are using these standards simply to minimise environmental damage or whether we are seeking to use them to prevent environmental damage.
The Bill says in more than one place that BATNEEC is there to minimise environmental damage and that the authority should have regard to the best practical environmental option. There is not, in that, any requirement to take preventive action. Therefore, my amendments seek, first, to put the prevention of environmental damage above minimisation and, secondly, to ensure that minimising environmental damage—a necessary fall-back condition—should be based on the possibility of environmental damage rather than on the likelihood of environmental damage; in other words, that it should be triggered more readily than it would be simply under "likelihood". I believe that is fully consistent with the principle of seeking to avoid trouble from the beginning rather than seeking to deal with it once it has occurred.
That is the thrust of my Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43. As I said, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is a valuable one which in many ways encapsulates the thinking we wish to have in the Bill and brings it neatly into Clause 3. I hope that the Government will accept his amendment and, in doing so, will look favourably on my amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is a very complex issue and I hope that noble Lords will bear with my rather lengthy response. First, I deal with an outstanding point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas. The external considerations such as environmental quality standards which have to be taken account of do not entail the overruling of a best practical environmental decision of an inspector. It is a method of ensuring that essential considerations relating to one medium are met. That does not undermine the position of HMIPs in any way.
I refer now to Amendment No. 15 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I sympathise with the intention behind this amendment. Subsection (4) of Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations which specify quality objectives or standards for environmental media. These regulations may relate to individual substances released into those media. So, for example, one might specify that levels of a cadmium in a certain river should not rise beyond

105
a given concentration. Individual processes discharging into the river would thus have to ensure that that standard was not breached, and Clause 7 provides the mechanism for ensuring that.
It is surely reasonable that, in setting such standards, one should take account of their possible knock-on effect on the other environmental media. For example, what if a tight limit set on the permitted concentration of cadmium in water merely encouraged processes to divert it up the chimney to pollute the air instead? In the case of some substances that might be a perfectly justifiable way to deal with the pollutant, but in others it might be unacceptable. One needs to be quite sure that the interests of the environment as a whole are secured.
However, I think it fair to point out that in practice the environmental quality system deals with what is a rather different, complementary piece of the jigsaw. Quality standards ensure that, come what may, essential requirements relating to a single medium are met. In the example I mentioned, if the cadmium covered by a water quality standard was also unacceptable above a given level in air, then a standard would be set for air, too.
In other words, a quality standards is, if I may put it so, a statement of what the best practical environmental option is for an individual environmental medium. Whenever particular circumstances require a standard to be set, it should rightly constrain the BPEO judgment at process level. Indeed, the mechanisms for securing the various objectives that Clause 7 requires of an authorisation secure just that. Not only does an authorisation have to secure the use of BATNEEC and the BPEO; it also has to secure that any environmental quality standards are met. If they are tighter than what might otherwise have been judged to be the BPEO, it is those tighter standards which will prevail. In effect, the BPEO in these circumstances has, by definition, to reflect these standards.
To include the BPEO judgment explicitly in the context of determining quality standards would be wrong The BPEO judgment can only apply to an individual plant when the enforcing authority considers how best to ensure that the plant has the minimum environmental impact possible. If a process cannot meet a quality standard it cannot be operated. A quality standard for a single medium should not take account of whether individual plants can meet it, as the amendment implies. It should be determined solely according to the environmental requirements of the medium concerned. I hope that this explanation has persuaded my noble friend that the purpose of his amendment is effectively met already through the admittedly rather complex mechanisms of the Bill as it stands.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I understand and appreciate the noble Lord's desire to be quite certain about the effect of Clause 7, and in particular the relationship between the objectives of subsection (2) and the BPEO
106
objective in subsection (7). I do not believe that there is any argument at all between us on what the overall objective of the clause should be in this respect.
The question is whether Clause 7 as drafted secures the BPEO in practice for a given process. I hope to reassure the noble Lord that it does. Subsection (2), which the noble Lord seeks to amend with Amendment No. 36, relates only to emissions to individual media. For releases to individual media the concept of BPEO is not an issue. The best option for an emission in these circumstances is obviously to prevent it; or, if that is not possible, to minimise it and render harmless any release which takes place. There can be no room for debate about that and it is exactly what the subsection delivers. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to introduce the cross-media concept here where it has no relevance.
If there were a choice to be made here—for example, between alternative control technologies—it would be a simple one of whichever technology best secured the objective to prevent, minimise and render harmless in one medium. However, if, as the amendment seems to imply, the choice was actually between options that related to different disposal routes or different methods of disposing to the same medium with alternative consequences for these different disposal routes, subsection (7) and the BPEO duty come into play.
Subsection (7) makes clear, without the need for any amendment, that the duty to consider the BPEO comes into play whenever it is likely that there will be releases to more than one medium. Based on that very wide criterion the BPEO judgment will in practice arise in just about every case. That is something which should be borne very much in mind.
I do not see that the subsection would be improved by substituting "may" for "is likely to" in line 27. The current wording implies that the BPEO judgment must be made before the releases are actually taking place, which is right. It applies at the earlier stage before options are closed. But it also implies that there has to be at least a reasonable chance that the releases would be to more than one medium. I have already made clear that that is likely to be the case in virtually every instance. I cannot see the virtue of lowering the threshold at which the judgment should be made to include even those very rare cases where the possibility of releases to more than one medium is remote.
In turning to the other two amendments in this group, I think it might be helpful if I emphasised once again that the BPEO objective in subsection (7) does not supersede the various objectives set out in subsection (2). It clearly states that in any case where there is a question of releases to more than one medium, those objectives should additionally include the securing of the BPEO overall. I do not think that any elaboration of that relationship is either necessary or helpful. There is no conflict between what the two subsections require. The addition of the BPEO objective in subsection (7) simply means that one meets the individual requirements at subsection (2) in whichever way secures the greatest protection for the environment as a whole.

107
The words in Amendment No. 42 merely duplicate part of the single medium requirements in subsection (2). The noble Lord seems in fact to be trying to do the very reverse of what he is attempting in Amendment No. 36. The effect would be to ensure as a first step in the BPEO judgment that BATNEEC is used to prevent releases of prescribed substances into the medium for which they are prescribed. That is precisely what subsection (2) already delivers. To repeat that requirement within the BPEO requirement seems at best unnecessary and at worst highly confusing.
I fear however that beyond that the amendment might actually weaken the requirements. Where prevention of releases to the medium concerned is not possible, it implies dropping the requirement to minimise them. Instead, the requirement is the minimisation of such releases to the environment as a whole. There is no case for that. It is at odds with the whole system of prescribing substances for specified media. It certainly contradicts the requirements at subsection (2). Minimisation has to be in the first instance for the prescribed medium. After that, the BPEO judgment applies.
Even more important is the fact that this amendment and Amendment No. 43 have the effect of limiting the BPEO judgment to prescribed substances and their prevention and minimisation. But that judgment must be made across all releases, not just those of prescribed substances. I believe that the clause as drafted gives us exactly what we want. The first objective is that BATNEEC must be used to prevent and minimise releases of prescribed substances into the medium for which they are prescribed. The second objective is that BATNEEC must be used to render harmless any releases of any substances which do occur. And in cases where releases to more than one medium are likely—that is to say, with most if not all IPC processes—there is an additional objective that BATNEEC must be used to secure the best environmental option overall. There is in my view no potential for conflict in expressing that BPEO objective as an additional judgment to be taken on top of the single medium ones. That conflict, as the present amendments show, is only likely to arise if one seeks to delineate the relationship unnecessarily.
I apologise for having detained the House with such detail over this point. I hope that I have demonstrated to the noble Lord opposite that his amendments would run counter to the requirements of the situation and that subsection (7) as drafted meets those requirements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I am grateful to her for setting out in detail the Government's position. I think that I followed a good deal of it, although I certainly cannot claim to have followed all of it. As I understand it, when we are talking about any possible conflict between subsection (2) and subsection (7) of Clause 7, BPEO is a fallback position. It is what comes into play if BATNEEC does not operate when there is emission into more than one medium. Okay, so far so
108
good. However, BATNEEC in its very formulation does not entail excessive costs. But what happens if there is no technique not entailing excessive cost when there is only emission into one medium? What we were trying to get at—whether we have succeeded, I do not know—was that surely BPEO should be there as a longstop for emissions into a single medium as well as into more than one medium.
I am slightly reassured to hear the Minister say that in the great majority of cases it will be more than one medium. However, BATNEEC is not as strong as BPEO and if it is not available as, so to speak, a safety valve in subsection (2) then surely there is something missing.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I made it clear in part of my answer that if the process fails the BATNEEC test and the BPEO is triggered off—that is, if it actually fails and is damaging to the environment by one medium or another by emissions into one medium or another—it would simply fail to be authorised.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her response. As she said, it was indeed complex. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I think that one would wish to have a further look at the matter to try to slot into place the various points she made, especially as regards which of the authorities is in the pole position.
We have talked cheerfully about BATNEEC. Of course there are two definitions, and this worries me. The UK interpretation of it is,
"the best environmental technique not entailing excessive cost".
However, the European interpretation is,
"the best available technology".
The two definitions could he somewhat opposed. I do not expect to receive a response to that aspect of the matter this evening. However, where you have two measures which may well fail the test and where the BPEO then has to be called into play, I suggest that there would have to be some authority which would be the lead authority and which would make the final decision.
I was a little sorry to hear the terminology used by my noble friend when she spoke about cadmium being discharged to water. I understood her to say that were that to be excessive there would be nothing to stop a polluter discharging up a chimney. That was perhaps an unfortunate expression. I say that because what industry is looking for in integrated pollution control is a clear set of guidelines so that it will know what it may and may not do. I do not believe that the recognised, responsible industries want to find an easier way to discharge in order to get around a regulation; they want a clear and absolute understanding in the matter.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that I think my noble friend's response expressed rather more hope than promise—a hope that I do not actually share. However, I am grateful to her for the little note that I have just received which tells me that, as in so many

109
such matters, the word "technology" is embraced by the wider UK term "best available techniques".
110
Therefore, it would seem that we are talking about the same thing. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No.16:
Page 6, line 7, at end insert ("and any plan shall include an assessment of the likely significant effects of the plan on the environment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by echoing the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, about the effects of emissions from power stations or industry, be they in the form of air or water. In devising any national plan for reducing such emissions it would seem prudent to assess the likely effects of any particular plan on the environment. The amendment seeks to include on the face of the Bill an environmental assessment for national plans.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee, but, on reading Hansard and after meeting my noble friends Lord Hesketh and Lord Reay, I am still not sure that the Government have fully understood the reasons for that earlier amendment. The Government have said that they are not convinced of the value of applying the principles of EA to strategic plans and programmes. I am sorry if that is the case, because it may mean that the Government will again find themselves in conflict with the EC over the issue, because the European Commission is currently drafting a proposal which would extend EA to strategic plans.
It is not sufficient to argue that there is no experience of applying EA to plans and programmes. There is ample experience abroad, especially in the United States, California being a prime example. I can point to at least one excellent example of the application of EA to an action programme in the United Kingdom. Let us consider the EA carried out in 1988 on the lower Colne Valley flood alleviation scheme to the west of London by what was Thames Water and is now the Thames region of the NRA. That involved an EA of the whole scheme with subsequent individual assessments carried out for separate projects along the river valley. While some projects may not have had an immense impact on the environment, taken together the whole scheme was significant. The fact that an EA on the whole scheme was carried out meant that all aspects of flooding and impacts on residential areas, wildlife and landscape were considered.
There is a good case for applying EA to all plans and programmes, but there are few better places to start than a plan for environmental protection. We do not want to solve one environmental problem by creating another.
I turn now to air emissions from power stations. We know that flue gas desulphurisation installations are to be fitted to a number of power stations. One process known as limestone-gypsum requires large quantities of quarried limestone and produces large quantities of gypsum. A significant proportion of that gypsum may find no suitable market and will therefore have to be disposed of, and thus the transport of limestone and gypsum will have a significant impact on local roads and the environment.
The alternative—for instance, the Wellman-Lord regenerative process—requires much less raw material and produces smaller quantities of byproducts. In this
112
case it would be sulphuric acid or sulphur. While the initial cost is likely to be 15 per cent. higher, when the installation is in close proximity to chemical works it is a cost-effective process.
How then can we decide which process to use and in which power stations? The answer is to carry out an EA to identify which mix of processes and technologies would have the least adverse impact on the environment. Other considerations should be included in that assessment. To what extent, for instance, can a proper programme for energy conservation reduce our dependence upon the dirtiest power stations? Other options such as clean-coal technologies and the use of low-sulphur coal and alternative energy sources such as gas should also be considered.
Unfortunately that has not been done. We have seen that FGD equipment is being installed at Drax power station in Yorkshire and is likely to be at Ferrybridge and Ratcliffe-on-Soar. Which process is to be used, one may ask? The answer is the limestone-gypsum process. Has that been chosen after properly assessing the impact on the environment? No. In fact the environmental statements produced by PowerGen for the applications to build FGD plant at both those stations contained no mention of alternative processes. Ferrybridge, for instance, is situated in reasonable proximity to both chemical plants and limestone sources. The possibility that the regenerative process might be less damaging to the environment has not even been considered, let alone dismissed.
An environmental assessment of the plan would look at the options before National Power or PowerGen decided which process to plump for. But the decision has been made without anyone having considered the alternatives or their relative impact on the environment. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench could say whether this decision was made on the grounds of cost alone. I am sure that she will confirm that the draft national plan for emissions is now out for consultation. I am sure that the various conservation organisations will reply to the draft. However, I am of the opinion that an environmental assessment would be immensely valuable.
I hope that my noble friend will feel that there is still scope for including an environmental assessment for national plans on the face of the Bill. I stress that we do not wish to be seen to be dragging our feet on the European proposals to extend EA plans and programmes. We should recognise the benefits and lead the field. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie. The circumstances are unusual. It is not often that one sees in a statute a power given to a Minister to make plans. It is generally assumed that Ministers will make plans without having to be given the power by Parliament. Here it is merely an optional power to make plans for the purposes stated in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (5).

113
My noble friend presumably accepts the power of the Secretary of State to make plans but says that if he does make a plan he shall include an assessment of the likely effects on the environment. When Parliament gives powers to Ministers to do this or that, we expect them to do so. It is unusual to ask them to justify that action. Parliament has given them the power and no justification would seem to be needed.
It is also unusual for Ministers to give reasons when carrying out the wishes of Parliament or the powers given by Parliament. For example, with a statutory instrument in pursuit of a subordinate power, even the explanatory note does not give the reasons for it. It merely says what the statutory instrument does. So both the provision in the Bill and my noble friend's amendment are unusual.
In the special circumstances of this matter, especially in the light of its European context, which my noble friend described so clearly, I should have thought that if we were to have these plans at all it would be a great advantage if they included an assessment of the likely effects on the environment. I can see no harm in that. I see advantage in it. I hope that we shall have an interesting and perhaps sympathetic reply.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope I shall not disappoint my noble friend Lord Renton. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, returns to a point he raised in Committee. His amendment would require a statement of environmental impact to be attached to any plan made to limit national emissions of a particular pollutant. Those plans, however, would generally operate over a number of years. The one which is currently out for consultation—that to implement the large combustion plants directive—will cover the period up to 2003. It deliberately does not prescribe the methods which will be used over that period to achieve the cuts in emissions required by the directive over such a long period. Instead, it sets out a clear strategy backed up by legally binding controls for ensuring that the targets are met, but allows some flexibility to the pollution inspectorates and to operators over how those targets will be met. We do not believe that it could sensibly and reasonably adopt any other approach.
With such a strategic document it is hard to see how one could devise a meaningful assessment of environmental impact since the detailed means of its implementation are not set out in the plan. The place for environmental impact assessments is in relation to particular planning applications and proposals where the impact and the alternatives can be more readily and clearly assessed. An application for a flue gas desulphurisation plant, for example, would always need to be accompanied by an environmental impact assessment. I use this example because I recognise that flue gas desulphurisation and the need for limestone to operate it is one of my noble friend's concerns. He fears that much of that limestone may be quarried in the national parks. I hope that he is reassured by
114
National Power's undertaking not to take the limestone for its plant at Drax from any of the national parks.
It is important to stress for my noble friend Lord Norrie that National Power has said that it will not use limestone from the national parks. It is also worth noting that the electricity industry will be only a small customer for limestone. I understand that Drax is likely to require 500,000 tonnes of limestone per annum and that the two other proposed retrofits will require about 300,000 tonnes. However, the Drax retrofit accounts for only 0.4 per cent. of the total UK production of limestone whereas the construction industry accounts for almost 90 per cent. of UK production.
My noble friend Lord Norrie asked me about limestone-gypsum from the FGD process leading to the creation of large quantities of gypsum which then have to be disposed of. Much of the gypsum might be sold to the construction industry for the manufacture of plasterboard, for example, and I understand that some could be used for ballast in road building. On the other hand, why not use the regenerative FGD process—the Wellman-Lord process—which does not need limestone and which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Norrie? That process leads to the production of large amounts of either sulphur or sulphuric acid, as my noble friend said, for which a market would have to be found. It would need to be transported from the station to the purchaser's premises or it would have to be disposed of safely. Returning to the amendment itself, I am bound to say that, while I understand my noble friend's concerns and have listened carefully to what he has said, I am not persuaded at this stage that what he proposes is the right approach. Given those assurances, I hope that he will not press his amendment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one brief point before the noble Baroness sits down. One group of people has been of great value in affecting the environment in a beneficial way. I am talking about HM Alkali Inspectorate, which perhaps possesses more knowledge on the subject than any other group of professionals. I may have caught the Minister on the hop on this subject, but perhaps she can give an indication whether the inspectorate's views will be sought.
I recently visited Renfrew, where the first desulphurisation plant for Drax was being manufactured. I understand that at that time negotiations were under way with about three groups of companies for the second plant to be fitted with the desulphurisation equipment. Can the Minister tell us where the second contract is now? I understood that only one contract had been let and processed up to about three months ago.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is difficult for me to give a specific answer to a specific question, but I am informed that the Alkali Inspectorate is an old name for HMIP. The inspectorate for which the noble Lord has such high regard has been subsumed in HMIP. I can assure the noble Lord that views will be sought from all sources.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that information.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for such an explicit explanation. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for making the situation clearer. In view of the Minister's full explanation at this stage I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 17A not moved.]
Clause 4 [Discharge and scope of functions]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 42, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament in respect of each of the first five years of the operation of this Part a statement that he is satisfied that the resources available to the Chief Inspector in that year are adequate to enable him to carry out his functions in the manner most conducive to the reduction of pollution and the conservation and improvement of the environment and in particular shall take account of—

(a) the adequacy of resources available to the Inspector in respect of specialist and other staff and equipment; and

(b) initial costs in relation to staffing, equipment and training.").

The noble Lord said: We now turn to the issue of resources for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. It has been referred to in passing but not in the concentrated form of Amendment No. 19.
The amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement that he is satisfied that the resources available to the chief inspector are adequate to enable him to carry out his functions. In considering whether the resources are adequate the Secretary of State will take account of the availability of specialist staff and the initial costs in relation to staffing, equipment and training.
I do not believe that the House would welcome any further rehearsal of the difficulties which Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has experienced over recent years. The Government sought at Committee stage to give assurances about their plans to reinforce the pollution inspectorate. They gave assurances that there were no restrictions on the number of appointments that would be made and that substantial improvements had been made to salary levels in the inspectorate. So far so good. However, since we last considered the matter in Committee more than three months have passed and there has not been any improvement. At the time of the publication of the White Paper there has not been, so far as I know, any reduction in the number of vacancies still to be filled in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Although the Government appear to be committed to finding more staff they have not done so.
If the measures taken by the Government to remove any restrictions on resources for the inspectorate have not succeeded one has to ask what further measures they now propose. One cannot take expenditure on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of
116
Pollution by itself. Everything that the inspectorate does must be undertaken in conjuntion with investment in research and development work by industry, with work by local authorities and so on. The Government claim to be reinforcing the inspectorate but seek to pay for that reinforcement by increasing the charges made by the inspectorate; it must be recognised that the cost of the inspectorate falls on us all and must be met by us all. It should not be related to, or restricted by, the charges that are made.
If existing methods of staffing the inspectorate have failed the Government must consider other methods. They must consider closer co-operation with the environmental health officers in local authorities. They must consider whether some of the work could be done on an agency basis rather than by the inspectorate itself. They must consider whether greater specialisation within the inspectorate as between research work and inspection work should be considered. It should not be necessary for all the members of the inspectorate to have both profound technical qualifications and experience of inspection work within industry. There may be some advantage to be gained from having a corps of people with a high degree of technical knowledge and a number of people to do the legwork who are perhaps not so highly qualified.
I offer these comments not in any criticism of the inspectorate as it is now and not in rejection of the offers that the Government made earlier to try to help the inspectorate. I simply want to bring the position up to date and give the Government an opportunity to offer further assurances. I should like to know whether they are considering creatively the possibilities that are open to make the inspectorate more effective by giving it the opportunity to have enough qualified staff to do the work. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. It is a fairly mild amendment, which asks the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament in each of the first five years of operation a statement that he is satisfied that adequate resources are available to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Unfortunately there are rumours still around that it is proving difficult to fill vacancies. Perhaps the Minister can bring us up to date on that point.
There is also the point that many local authorities feel that they could work for HMIP on an agency basis. They have the expert knowledge and it could rationalise some of the spending. Personally—and I daresay the noble Baroness will agree with me—I feel that in our local authorities there is a lot of expertise which is being overlooked at this time and possibly will not be made use of.
I made the same remarks when the Water Bill was being debated. I felt that environmental officers, health officers and others could play a major role in helping the NRA with its problems. I am sure that the same can happen with HMIP. Could we please have an up-to-date report on the staffing situation in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, our first objective must be to ensure that HMIP is an effective inspectorate so that it can continue to raise the quality of the environment. So, although we considered institutional change in the White Paper, we concluded that the benefits were not strong enough to outweigh the disadvantages of further administrative upheaval at a time when the inspectorate is beginning to get into its stride.
But that decision does not lessen by one iota the Government's commitment that HMIP will have the resources that it needs to do the job. There are currently 225 staff in post in the inspectorate, compared with 148 when it was established in April 1987 and 193 one year ago. The staff complement has recently been further increased to 250 and inspectors' salaries were increased by 28 per cent. last autumn. There are 25 vacancies within the increased complement, 11 of which are reserved for successful candidates from the current recruitment competition. We are continuing to recruit actively to fill the remaining posts.
We continue to look at ways of improving the recruitment success rate of the inspectorate, including keeping under review pay levels. But recruitment is not just about pay, as recruitment consultants will tell you. Good people look for jobs which stretch and develop them to the full. The inspectorate is also carrying out a review of aspects of its professional career structure such as career management and development and training. The study, which is being undertaken by outside consultants, will also cover the inspectorate's recruitment targeting and procedures.
Those are not the measures of an organisation in decline, but those of one determined to meet a challenge. HMIP has also recently introduced an additional recruitment grade of assistant pollution inspector. This grade is aimed at candidates with the same honours degree qualification as pollution inspectors but with a shorter period of industrial experience. This initiative will broaden the pool from which future inspectors can be drawn while maintaining the same high standards on which HMIP rightly insists and which industry expects.
The noble Lord's amendment mentioned training. Of course one cannot introduce a sophisticated new system of pollution control without training. So here too the inspectorate is taking action, not only in providing internal training on IPC but also in developing plans for a postgraduate MSc course in integrated pollution management at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Both the inspectorate and the university are looking forward to the course, which incidentally will be of benefit to industry and local government as well.
I recognise that by introducing higher standards of pollution control the Government have raised the stakes in this area. As industry gears up to new requirements the demand for high calibre professionals—the market in which HMIP is competing—is increased. That is one reason why we intend additionally to strengthen HMIP's position in the
118
longer term so that the inspectorate becomes an executive agency. That will enhance its status and strengthen its authority in controlling pollution.
As The Times newspaper recognised just over a week ago, HMIP is now making headlines,
"by manifesting its determination to carry through what will be the toughest industrial pollution control system in Europe. (It) is establishing a firm public profile and a confident tone".
Awareness is heightened about HMIP. Resources are being increased. Recruitment is buoyant. Salaries, training and career development provision are improved. HMIP has an important job to do. We have undertaken to ensure that it has the resources it needs. That is why it is looking forward to the implementation of IPC. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, from the tone of that answer the Secretary of State should have no fear about the proposal in the amendment that he should present a report to Parliament. It all sounds grand, does it not? I am only partly reassured because some of the evidence goes in the other direction. Much of the integrated pollution control as proposed in Part I of the Bill will not be introduced in April 1991 but only in April 1992. I accept that some specific parts will be brought in next year. However, most will be postponed until the following year. That must be in part at least because of the lack of skilled staff to carry out the work.
I am also less than fully reassured by a statement in the White Paper. I meant to comment on it during an earlier amendment. The White Paper raises the possibility that HMIP might be merged with the NRA. That raises another possibility: that HMIP might take over certain waste disposal functions in addition to its existing functions. However no answer is given to those questions. The possibility of organisational change in the future having been raised, it is simply left in the air. That does not provide a secure basis for the inspectorate to plan its future and to know what its future is likely to be.
I am pleased to hear about the training opportunities which are being taken. I am pleased to hear that recruitment is up on the last figures we were given. However, I am still far from convinced that if the Secretary of State made the proposed report to Parliament he would be able to be as optimistic as the noble Baroness has been in her reply.
I do not intend to press the amendment. However, it has elicited some useful information for which I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Publicity for IPC
.—(1) This section shall have effect, together with sections 3(7) and 4(4) above, for the purposes of promoting awareness of the operation of this Part among the general public and persons who may be affected by determinations made or authorisations granted under it.
(2) The Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the enforcing authority, shall give notice in—

(a) the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazettes as appropriate; or

(b) at least one local newspaper covering an area likely to be affected by an authorisation, or by any conditions attached thereto

as specified under subsections (3) and (4) below.
(3) The matters in respect of which notice shall be given under subsection (2) (a) above by the Secretary of State shall be as follows—

(a) the laying of draft regulations under sections 2(1) or 2(5) above;

(b) the laying of draft regulations under sections 3(1) or 3(4) above;

(c) the laying of draft regulations under sections 5(1) or 5(2) above;

(d) the making of a direction under section 6(5) or 6(7) below;

(e) a determination of an appeal under section 15(6) below.

(4) The matters in respect of which notice shall be given under subsection 2(b) above by the enforcing authority shall be—

(a) those matters which the enforcing authority has a duty to place on a register under section 20(1) below; and

(b) any conditions included in an authorisation under section 7(1) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is greater public knowledge about what the Government are providing in the Bill. It follows from the debates in Committee. If I remember correctly, we then asked the Government if they would consider publishing all the relevant regulations in several of the serious national dailies. The reply was that that was not needed. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, stated that Government had a firm commitment towards letting the general public know what was going on.
The amendment effectively follows the firm commitment that the Government apparently have. It asks the Government to publish in the Gazettes of London, Edinburgh or Belfast, or in a local paper, depending upon which is more appropriate, a series of regulations on such matters as the prescribed substances and the setting up of pollution standards.
There is no real need to go through the provisions in detail, especially at this time of night. However, I do not believe that putting them on to the face of the Bill will seriously inconvenience the Government in any way. It will give the general public easier access to the information that is there but not readily available. It will reassure the public and let people know when something goes wrong. If the general public does not have confidence in the new regulations the Bill will fail to some extent. We are asking for trouble if the public does not believe that we have some form of environmental protection. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government want to ensure that the public and operators of processes are fully aware of the progress of integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control. That is why we have provided for public registers of
120
information about prescribed processes, and information will be locally available, free of charge for anyone who wants to see it. The information on the registers will include copies of applications for authorisations, the authorisations themselves, notices served by the enforcing authority, details of convictions for offences, and monitoring information. That is in addition to the two examples cited in the noble Lord's amendment, details of any direction made by the Secretary of State and the result of the determination of any appeal under Clause 15.
But that commitment to giving people information should in our view go further than registers alone. That is why under the draft regulations that we shall be issuing shortly we shall be proposing that details of applications for authorisations shall be advertised in at least one newspaper circulating in the area of the process. The public will have a chance to comment on the application before an authorisation is given. That is why in the same regulations we shall be proposing that appeal hearings must be advertised in at least one local newspaper—so that the public has the opportunity to put across its point of view.
I hope that the explanation goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord. However, in our view it would be an excessive burden of time and money to require HMIP and local authorities to advertise in local newspapers every change that they make to the public register, as the noble Lord's amendment would require. The registers will change many times every year; for example, to incorporate new monitoring information. But that does not require changes to be advertised. I repeat that the public has a right to inspect the register free of charge and at any reasonable time.
Nor do I believe that it is either necessary or sensible to provide that the draft regulations that we shall be making under Part I should be advertised in the Gazettes. We intend to consult widely and we intend to consult soon. We intend to consult widely because we want to involve people in the new systems of pollution control. We want to consult soon so that we can give people enough time to consider our proposals in detail and give ourselves enough time to take account of their views before the new pollution systems become operational on 1st April next year. That is why we intend to issue the draft regulations for consultation later this month. We look forward to hearing what people have to say.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister's answer shed a certain amount of light. I would rather have a publication that is more readily available than the register so that we can see what is going on. When all is said and done, that is what the amendments are about. We should like to make access as easy as possible. However, as the Government are moving more towards that line of thought, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment at this time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 29 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Authorisations for Processes: Supplementary Provisions]:
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 149, line 28, at end insert ("or exclude any class of information contained in applications for authorisations from those requirements, in all cases or as respects specified classes only of persons to be consulted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 35. At the outset, I underline industry's wish to be as open as possible in matters of pollution control and waste disposal. Nevertheless, when we discussed the matter of confidentiality of commercial processes at an earlier stage, I expressed some reservations.
Although Clause 22 allows confidential information to be omitted from registers of information if an appeal is successful, and Clause 21 makes the same provision as regards national security information, the terms of Schedule 1 state that the whole of an application for an authorisation must be copied to any statutory consultees prescribed under paragraph (2).
At this stage we do not know who those statutory consultees are to be. However, if any one is a commercial organisation, it seems to me to be wrong that that organisation should be copied in on the commercial secrets of another because in what is undoubtedly a hi-tech business commercial secrets can be very valuable to an individual company. Amendment No. 31 simply allows the Secretary of State, in the regulations he is to make under Schedule 1, to exclude national security and commercially confidential information from being copied to statutory consultees. In other words, there is a discretion on the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 allow the same exclusions to be made in respect of applications for variations. I do not believe that these amendments detract at all from the general sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, nor indeed from the right for registers to be inspected and the public to be informed about what is happening as regards pollution control. I hope that your Lordships will agree to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend for spotting these anomalies. He has made a good case and I have no hesitation in accepting the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 150, line 25, leave out ("a request is made in the prescribed manner") and insert (", in the manner prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, a request is made').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 151, line 23, at end insert ("or exclude any class of information relating to action to be taken by holders of authorisations from all or any of those requirements, in all cases or as respects specified classes only of persons to be consulted.").
On. Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 152, line 8, at end insert ("or exclude any class of information furnished with applications for variations of authorisations from all or any of those requirements, in all cases or as respects specified classes only of persons to be consulted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conditions of authorisations/]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 10, line 1, after ("the") insert ("matters specified in subsection (3A) and the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 10, line 5, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall give directions under subsection (3) above to require the inclusion as conditions of authorisations of the following—

(a) the minimisation of pollution to environmental media;

(b) the protection of the biosphere;

(c) the development of the sustainable use of natural resources;

(d) the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste;

(e) the conservation of energy;

(f) the minimisation of environmental health and safety risks to employees and to other persons;

(g) the adoption of voluntary controls over the safety of goods and services produced for sale;

(h) the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation for damage caused by the person authorised, or his processes or products;

(i) the disclosure of adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies on matters relevant to the environment and health and safety; and

(j) the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits to monitor the effectiveness of any principles of actions adopted").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 39 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 40. Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, tabled an amendment at Committee stage which put the enforcing authorities under duties to conserve and protect flora and fauna along the lines of the duties applicable to the NRA under the Water Act 1989. He was concerned that there should be a smooth relationship between the pollution inspectorate and the National Rivers Authority. However, he feared

123
that there was not the same environmental duty to further conservation and amenities in the pollution inspectorate's terms of reference.
I am sorry that the noble Lord is no longer present. He gave examples of disposal routes for waste and pollution which could harm feeding bird populations and drain into water courses. Once the pollution enters the water courses it is the responsibility of the NRA. In the meantime it is the pollution inspectorate which is involved with discharge from factories, and indeed local authorities in so far as they are concerned. It seems reasonable to pursue his line of argument by tabling Amendment No. 40, which adds to the conditions for authorisation,
"furthering so far as practicable the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and amenity and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest".
When the noble Lord, Lord Reay, replied to that debate he said that creating a conservation duty would cut across the structure of Clause 7, and that Clause 7 already included general requirements to use BATNEEC. He did not see how an amendment specifically devoted to further conservation which did not cut across BATNEEC could be drafted. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, thought that possible. His amendment at that time sought to place on the enforcing authorities duties which presumably they would deal with by their licensing activities. This amendment directly incorporates a conservation duty into the conditions of licences and applies directly to licences. Clause 7(4) sets out the general conditions which are applied in the licence so that the licensee must use BATNEEC to prevent releases, and make harmless any releases which occur.
The amendment adds a third general condition, that as far as practicable the interests of conservation should be adhered to. Therefore the rather technical and negative response from the Government Front Bench to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, at Committee stage ought not to apply. The amendment as drafted meets those obligations. It is self-evidently a good thing to protect conservation in this way, and ensure that HMIP and the National Rivers Authority have comparable interests and powers. I hope therefore that the Government will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, these amendments seek to make the promotion of nature conservation an explicit objective of the authorisation procedure. Worthy though this aim is, we cannot accept its relevance to Part I of the Bill. Industrial pollution control is designed to ensure that releases cause no environmental harm, whether to organisms or ecosystems; not to promote nature conservation.
Many noble Lords will be aware of schemes that individual industrialists and their companies have funded to enhance the environment; the creation of nature reserves and educational sites, the cleaning up of estuaries and other areas, the protection of
124
particular habitats. These are to be applauded and encouraged. But it would be inappropriate for us to legislate, as this amendment would have us do, to require such schemes from all scheduled processes.
The objective of this part of the Bill is to protect the environment from harm from industrial activity. This indeed is the primary aim of authorisations. And our system of public consultation on applications for authorisation and publication of monitoring data will allow all those interested in the environment to ensure that the duty imposed on operators and enforcing agencies is fully met.
We are offering an additional safeguard in respect of sites of special scientific interest. We have agreed that the two Nature Conservancy Councils and the Countryside Council for Wales will be statutory consultees for all applications which may involve a release of any substance which is likely to affect an SSSI within their area. They will therefore be able to ensure that the enforcing authority is fully aware of the conditions they would wish to impose to ensure no harm is caused to such SSSIs. We do not believe that the more positive objective sought by the amendments is practicable. What might "furthering the enhancement of natural beauty" be taken to mean? Does it mean providing new amenity facilities?
We believe the requirement to prevent environmental harm and the nomination of the councils as statutory consultees on applications for authorisation to be a sufficient safeguard for nature conservation. I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that response is simply an assertion and no evidence whatever is produced to support it. The arguments that the Minister put forward in Committee were shot down in flames. Indeed, he has not sought to revive them. He has not told us again that what we are proposing would cut across the aims of Clause 7. He now says that it is not appropriate or not relevant to Part I in general.
However, in Clause 7 there are references to the duties of the National Rivers Authority. I cannot find them for the moment but the Section 7 duties under the 1989 Water Act are enshrined in Part I of this Bill. As the noble Lord will recognise, the National Rivers Authority acts on water pollution for the pollution inspectorate. Therefore, we already have in the Bill provisions for conservation in so far as concerns the National Rivers Authority acting for the inspectorate.
There is no difference in principle in accepting that there should be this additional general condition for a licence to be given by the pollution inspectorate. In any case, as the Minister failed to say, this is not laying down something hard and fast. The amendment states only that so far as practicable the licence should pay attention to conservation matters.
I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's answer. If it were not for the lateness of the hour I should certainly seek the opinion of the House, but for that time reason alone I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 43 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Variation of conditions etc.: applications by holders of authorizations]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Revocation of authorisation]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Prohibition notices]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Appeals as respects authorisations and against variation, enforcement and prohibition notices]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 17, line 22, at end insert ("(except where the decision implements a direction of his)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Obtaining of information from persons and authorities]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 22, line 18, after ("their") insert ("respective").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Public registers of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 23, line 7, at end insert:
("(j) any report of an investigation which it has carried out into pollution of the environment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 50B and 51 to 53. These amendments deal with different aspects of freedom of information about the environment. This is a most important principle established by the Opposition, at any rate, on Second Reading and I am glad to see it is reflected to a considerable extent not so much in the Bill but in the White Paper.
It is now generally recognised that the effectiveness of environmental protection depends considerably on the extent to which environment information is available to the general public so that they can take action to protect the environment. One of the features of the White Paper is that instead of proposing government action it continually proposes action by the general public, who can only act if they have the information on which to act. Amendment No. 50A to Clause 20 provides that the public register of information should include
"any report of an investigation which it has carried out into pollution of the environment".
At the moment the only information that is available is the sampling results and any enforcement notice. So there is no requirement that a report into the health effects, for example, of a pollution incident or the cause of the incident should be included in the public register.
That is not just a theoretical point. There is the history of the cover-up that took place after the Camelford water pollution incident. For those whose health was seriously affected by the releases into the
126
water it took many months to get anywhere near the truth. It was not just damaging to their health that they did drink the polluted water; it was also damaging to their health that they did not know and were not told what was wrong. A number of so-called investigations were set up which had the intention, I have to say, of covering up rather than revealing to the people affected what had happened. It was a really disgraceful incident. In many ways it is still going on. There is still no full acceptance of responsibility for the damage that was done at Camelford. There is no full understanding of what the long-term medical effects are likely to be. In addition to the other matters that should be included on a public register, there should be a report of any investigation that has been carried out into pollution of the environment.
Amendment No. 50B has the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, attached to it, and I am glad to see that. Here we are concerned that we should exclude from public registers matters affecting national security. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is better qualified to speak on that subject than I am and I leave that matter to him.
Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 are concerned with Clause 22 and the exclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is still in his seat. I know that he is very concerned, perhaps from a slightly different point of view from mine, that there should be adequate protection of commercial confidentiality. I have to say to him that the thrust of our amendments is in the other direction. We feel that commercial confidentiality has not only been adequately covered by the Bill but in many senses has been excessively covered. Therefore, in Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 we are proposing that where an enforcing authority is of the opinion that information which has been excluded because it is commercially confidential is no longer commercially confidential, the enforcing authority, with certain precautions—in other words, informing the person concerned and giving the opportunity for representation and so on—should take account of the representations and delete the commercially confidential label and include the information on the register.
Amendment No. 52 does the same thing: it excludes the provision for commercial confidentiality when information has ceased to be commercially confidential. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, as well as the Government, will feel that this is a reasonable restriction on the commercial confidentiality exclusion and that the public interest will indeed be well served without damage to any particular person if these amendments are agreed to. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to' Amendment No. 50B. I support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has said on the other amendments in the group. In terms of commercial confidentiality, it is right that we should try to maintain a proper if delicate balance in these matters. It would be foolish to have a Bill that fell over on one side of that point of balance. In the interests of

127
industry itself as well as in the interests of the public it is foolish to treat things as confidential when they have ceased to be so.
I wish to address my remarks to the anomaly which exists within the Bill between those matters which are treated as commercially confidential information and are excluded from the register under Clause 22 and those matters where information is excluded under Clause 21 on the grounds of national security and where no similar acknowledgment of the existence of these items is included in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to require an acknowledgment that these sources of pollution exist.
Under the Bill it would be possible to suppress from the registers all reference to the very existence of highly polluting sources from, for instance, defence establishments. We should not pretend that the existence of these establishments is not well known. It is already public knowledge and therefore the reference to them in the register is not in itself harmful. I understand the sensitivity of some of these establishments to people mentioning their very existence, but their existence is known. It would be foolish to pretend in the Bill that it is not.
On the other hand, there is a downside to this argument in that the undeclared censoring of the register may encourage the suspicion to be directed towards innocent parties. In other words, if pollution is coming from one of these establishments which is not on the public record, people might look for other sources of pollution. That would be unfair to those who are innocent. That situation is likely to occur if pollution damage is visible but where the real source has been suppressed in the public records. This amendment would require the registers to include a note acknowledging that information about an establishment had been withheld in the interests of national security.
This is not a new concept. It is already acknowledged as normal practice in existing pollution registers. For instance, Section 117 of the Water Act 1989 requires that the NRA should maintain a register of water pollution information. Paragraph 1(7) (b) of Schedule 12 to that Act allows for details of particular premises to be withheld from the register where the Secretary of State issues a certificate that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. That certificate is placed on the register. But the very existence of that source is not denied. Similar arrangements exist for air pollution registers established under Part IV of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, where again the Secretary of State can direct that information about premises should be withheld in the public interest. But the fact that he has done so must be inscribed on the register.
Some premises have been exempted altogether from air pollution disclosures under the 1974 Act but there is nothing secret about the identity of these premises. They are all listed under the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (Exempted Premises) Regulations 1977. Among those specified are the premises of the Admiralty Underwater Weapons
128
Establishment, the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Boscombe Down, the Rocket Propulsion Establishment, the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment and others—in other words, the sort of places which may well be excluded by the provision in this Bill.
These examples indicate that the normal practice is to acknowledge when information about particular premises has been withheld on national security grounds. That fact was accepted by the Government as recently as 1989 during the passage of the Water Act. Amendment No. 50B would merely bring the Environmental Protection Bill in line with what is accepted as a precedent for such establishments.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, mentioned my name, perhaps I may say a few words on the matter. In my view he is somewhat confusing secrecy and confidentiality. I say that because to claim commercial confidentiality the information will have to be divulged to a body which will determine whether it falls within that category. If it does not, then the information is open and will appear on a register. However, if the information is deemed to be commercially confidential then it is known only to a number of people.
In terms of a process, bearing in mind the fact that a technological process is soon overtaken by newer and better processes, is the noble Lord suggesting that there should be another body of people to determine when commercial confidentiality shall cease? Surely there will be a natural cessation and then, I imagine, the process would automatically find its way to the register. Frankly speaking, I do not think that these amendments are necessary for that very reason.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 50A. I can assure your Lordships that a report of an investigation into pollution of the environment will be made publicly available. The regulations we are preparing will certainly require simple monitoring data collected by the enforcing authorities specific to a particular prescribed process to be placed on the register. If a fuller report is prepared which relates to the environment around one particular process, then that too should go on the register along with other information about that process. But if the report is more general and does not relate to a particular prescribed process, then there is no need for the information to go on the register. However, the information will be made available to the public in line with the requirements of the European Commission's directive on public access to environmental information which this Government did so much to support and which was agreed earlier this year.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, not only on his patience for waiting to speak to what is almost the last amendment of the day but also for his research through previous legislation. However, I am not convinced that we are comparing like with like. Although Section 79 of the Control of Pollution Act makes positive provision for local authorities to obtain information about the emission of pollutants

129
and other substances into the air it must consult interested bodies, such as council members, nominees of local industry and suitably qualified local individuals at least twice a year about how far and in what way information collected should be made available to the public. That is perhaps why local authorities have made almost negligible use of these discretionary powers.
The Bill offers no such prior discussion with interested parties about how information is to be collected. This Bill gives them much more power to collect the information they need. Additionally, Section 79 of the Control of Pollution Act did not apply to the main polluting processes controlled under the Alkali Act which now pass to control under this Bill. Again, we are not comparing like with like.
There are differences too between the water registers and those intended for IPC. The water registers are concerned with discharge limits. IPC registers will contain a copy of the application, including a detailed map marking precisely where the prescribed process is located, detailed information about the process, the materials to be used and produced and many other detailed descriptions of elements of the process.
The information goes way beyond what is contained on other registers; it has to be right therefore that we take the proper powers so that information which could damage national security is not identified.
That is not to say that information will be exempted lightly from the public register on the grounds of national security. The guiding principle behind this clause is that information is made freely available to the public in as comprehensive a manner as it is possible to do. For example, the noble Lord mentioned the fact that premises exempted from the air pollution disclosure provisions of the 1974 Act are listed in regulations. My response is that if they are listed in that way there would be no grounds for excluding that same information from the registers established under this clause.
As with applications for commercial confidentiality, we shall require cogent and specific evidence to substantiate a claim that disclosure would prejudice national security. By cogent and specific we mean a detailed examination of why each and every item which could be included in the register should be excluded. I do not expect blanket exemptions to be given in any but the most exceptional case.
I hope that that explanation will have reassured the noble Lord that we do not intend, as he feared, that national security will be used systematically to suppress references to such establishments. Nor should he worry about suspicion being directed at innocent parties. Their records will be on the register for all to see. I urge him not to press his amendment.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53, I have listened to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord about the way in which information which has ceased to be commercially confidential should be handled. The Bill provides for that under Clause 22(7).
130
I have to confess that that subsection resulted from an amendment tabled by the Opposition in the other place which provided that commercial confidentiality should be time limited and that it should be renewed only by an application to the enforcing authority. We consulted industrial trade associations and environmental groups before concluding that four years was about the right time for information to remain confidential before such a renewal application should be made. As was only to be expected, some parties wanted a very much longer period and others a much shorter one. We believe that four years strikes the right balance, and it has the important advantage of meshing in with the four-yearly review cycle of authorisations.
The problem with Amendment No. 53 is that it would remove that degree of certainty that the current provision has. For example, having been told that information was commercially confidential one day, an operator would not know whether he would be told the next that it should go on the register. I suggest that that uncertainty of continuous review would provide a disincentive to invest in research into less polluting technology as the operator would fear that the commercial advantages of doing so would be destroyed by the information appearing too quickly on the public register; and for the enforcing authority the implied duty to review continuously would be completely impractical. We think a fixed time-scale is appropriate; and, having consulted, four years seems about right. The last point may have answered my noble friend Lord Lucas.
I considered Amendment No. 52 most carefully. Subsection (9) of the clause meets the point of the noble Lord's amendment by applying subsections (5) and (6) to cases where an authority has determined that the information has ceased to be commercially confidential. That has the same effect as the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that he is reassured by this explanation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will be happy with the answer that he received because, as I understood it, he was making a relatively simple point: not that national security should in any way be endangered by his amendment but that the extension of the concept of national security to deny even that such establishments existed and that people did not know about them was going too far. That point was not answered.
On Amendment No. 50A, as I understand it the Minister was telling me that reports of investigations will be made public but that they will not be made public on the public register. Despite what she said about the European directive on environmental information, I urge her to consider whether it might not be to the public benefit if the public register were to be the comprehensive, unique and well-recognised source of environmental information and whether the European directive might not be better complied with if the public register, which is provided for in these clauses, were to include reports of investigations. If

131
the public have to go to different sources for different bits of information, I suggest that the information is not as effective as it would otherwise be.
I turn now to the noble Baroness's answers on Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53. She is quite right in saying that the original impetus for a recognition of the cessation of commercial confidentiality came from Opposition amendments in another place. What she does not say is that the Opposition amendments argued in the first instance for a shorter period of review, in other words every 18 months, and that the four-year compromise which the Government reached did not have the support of the Opposition. I do not think that we can be tarred with that particular brush.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, argued that there would be a natural cessation of commercial confidentiality. That is not the case. The Opposition in another place brought about the unnatural cessation, so to speak, of commercial confidentiality. I still do not think that the case for greater flexibility has been adequately refuted by the Government's arguments. I draw particular attention to the care taken in the drafting of Amendment No. 53 to make sure that when the enforcing authority—it is the enforcing authority and nobody else which has this responsibility—is of the opinion that the information has ceased to be commercially confidential, it has to give the person to whom it relates notice. It has to give him a reasonable opportunity to make representations and if, after taking account of representations, it decides that the information has ceased to be commercially confidential, it,
"shall notify the person concerned of its intention to include the information in the register".
In other words, all the appeals procedure is fail-safe for the person whose business it is. Nothing will be put on the register until the entire procedure has been concluded.
I consider that we have gone not just a very long way but all the way that anybody could reasonably demand to make these reasonable and acceptable amendments. I do not think that this part of the Bill as drafted is adequate for the purpose. Again, this may be a matter to which we have to return at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 50B not moved]
11.30 p.m.
Clause 22 [Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information]:
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 26, line 4 after ("may") insert ("have been determined to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and speak also to Amendment No. 122. In doing so, I should declare an
132
interest as a non-executive director of a chemical company. I am advised on this matter by the Chemical Industries Association, a worthy body for which I have considerable respect.
In Committee, the Minister defended the need for subsection (7) in circumstances such as the aftermath of a Chernobyl type catastrophe. To alleviate unnecessary public concern, it might be necessary to release information that was otherwise regarded as commercially confidential. That is well understood and accepted, even though we find it hard to envisage such situations and even harder to envisage situations where the operator himself did not agree to the release of information in such terrifying circumstances. However, we accept that the Secretary of State needs powers to take action if the operator refused to allow the information to be released.
The problem with the subsection is that it goes beyond this position and appears to empower the Secretary of State to give blanket directions decreeing, for example, that henceforth no information about substances emitted from any prescribed process should be accepted as being confidential. This clearly goes beyond the scope of what is intended in relation to what the Minister said. I cannot for the life of me remember which Minister it was; we have had so many dealing with the Bill. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of welcoming the noble Baroness to the seat of power on the other side of the House at this stage, late though it is in the evening.
The amendment preserves the Secretary of State's power to override previous decisions while preventing him from limiting the overall scope of the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord. The amendments looked convincing from a drafting point of view when I first saw them on paper, but, despite the arguments that the noble Lord has advanced today, I do not think that it would be right to accept them.
There may be occasions when information has not been determined to be commercially confidential—for example, if it is the subject of an appeal—but which would need to be placed on the register in the public interest. It would not be right for information which had gone through the appeal process and been determined to be confidential to go on the register while exempting that still at the appeal stage.
With that brief explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, with that brief but almost unintelligible explanation, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I need to look carefully at what she has said at this late hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before midnight.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: STATUS
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: STATUS
  FIRE SERVICE COLLEGE: FUNDING
  FIRE SERVICE COLLEGE: FUNDING
  ENVIRONMENTAL COST ASSESSMENT
  ENVIRONMENTAL COST ASSESSMENT
  ATOMIC ENERGY: SAFEGUARDS REPORT
  ATOMIC ENERGY: SAFEGUARDS REPORT
  EURATOM: SAFEGUARDS REPORT
  EURATOM: SAFEGUARDS REPORT
  NUCLEAR FUEL IMPORTS: SAFEGUARDS RESPONSIBILITY
  NUCLEAR FUEL IMPORTS: SAFEGUARDS RESPONSIBILITY
  SCHOOL BOOKS: EXPENDITURE
  SCHOOL BOOKS: EXPENDITURE
  DEFENCE ACTIVITIES: SMOKE AND NOISE
  DEFENCE ACTIVITIES: SMOKE AND NOISE