Sitting of 10 October 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Turtles and Terrapins: Import Controls
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the prohibition of imports of turtles and terrapins carrying salmonella of the kinds which can be transmitted to human beings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no immediate plans to extend existing conservation controls on the import of turtles and terrapins.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Is she aware of recent cases in the United States where salmonella poisoning has been traced to that source? Since salmonella has been a growing problem in Britain, are the Government ready to restrict or stop the traffic in these creatures if cases of salmonella poisoning occur in this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government are certainly aware that there is considerable speculation about the incidence of salmonella coming from terrapins and turtles. I understand the difficulties but it is hard to be certain about the evidence in this country. There are no reliable data available for us to assess the degree of the problem. The Department of Health is issuing public information leaflets on the welfare of animals and how to care for them which cover in particular the transmission of diseases from animals. I can assure my noble friend that we are already considering tightening European regulations as regards the trading of terrapins and turtles.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the situation is made any more difficult by the fact that turtles are now becoming popular fiction for young people, which may increase the demand for such creatures?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my education was completed this morning. I understand that Splinter, Leonardo, Raphael, Michael Angelo and Donatello, who are the Teenage Mutant Heroes of the day, have indeed given rise to a great deal of trading in terrapins and turtles. That raises more serious difficulties. One is the transmission of disease. That is why we ought to increase our efforts to tighten our controls on the import of these creatures and increase the information on looking after animals that we make available. I also understand the problem that people do not quite know what to do with these creatures when they grow too large to keep as pets.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in view of the fact that the House rather expected the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, to answer the Question, can her noble friend assure us that there is no truth in the rumour that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is in Aberystwyth learning how to pronounce the names of Welsh towns?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am entirely at a loss as to how to answer that question.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, considering the drastic measures which the Government took against the poultry industry in order to control salmonella, does my noble friend think that she should take a little more action to control the danger of the incidence of salmonella from terrapins? Secondly, does she have some anxiety about the neglect suffered by many of these attractive creatures when the person who has bought one or the child who owns it becomes bored and neglects to care for it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important question which applies not just to terrapins but to the ownership of all animals as pets. Certainly the Government take the problem seriously. The Department of Health has taken very seriously the question of advice to people about the care of pets and the transmission of disease from pets to humans. As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, regulations exist which cover the importation of animals and trading in them. At present we are engaged in trying to tighten and extend those regulations to cover the importation of terrapins and turtles and trading in them.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that next month the Lord Mayor of London will be holding his traditional inaugural banquet in the Guildhall, to which many senior Ministers of the Crown and other dignitaries are invited, and that traditionally at that banquet turtle soup is served? Are those people in great danger?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply say that if they follow the advice in the information leaflet from the Department of Health they are in no danger at all.

The Gulf: UN Action
2.43 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further action they propose to take through the United Nations in connection with the invasion of Kuwait.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the United Nations has responded with unprecedented solidarity and vigour to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, agreeing nine Security Council resolutions designed to achieve Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
We are now considering with other members of the Security Council what further measures the UN might take to ensure Iraq's compliance with the will of the international community.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Have any further measures been considered to try to ameliorate the appalling suffering among the tens of thousands of mainly women and children in the refugee camps in the countries that adjoin Iraq? Perhaps I may press the Minister. Are any further measures under consideration to try to relieve the suffering of those unfortunate people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the UN Secretary General has appointed Sadruddin Aga Khan as international relief co-ordinator. Government Ministers have met Sadruddin to discuss ways forward. The House might be interested to know that the UK has contributed over £10 million in humanitarian assistance, including £0.5 million to the International Committee for the Red Cross, £2 million to the International Organisation for Migration, which has done an excellent job, and £7.2 million towards the EC's emergency aid programme.
The noble Lord will be aware that the best thing we can do, and therefore the priority, must be to repatriate the foreign workers as soon as possible.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for that information. Of course we fully support all the actions which the Government are taking in this particular area.
Is the noble Earl aware that it was reported on a radio programme just before lunch that a military action had been commenced on the borders of Kuwait by the United Nations forces, but that the noble Earl's department had denied the report? Is he able to give the House any further information on any other developments?
Furthermore, can he say how effective is the imposition of the United Nations sanctions by both sea and air at the present time?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's first question I am unable to give any further information at the present time. However, perhaps I may assure your Lordships that we shall wish to keep the House informed if there are any new significant developments.
With regard to sanctions, the Sanctions Committee is hard at work controlling sanctions both from air and sea. We wish everybody in the international community to play their part to make sure that none of the items that is subject to sanctions proceeds to Iraq.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said. May we all assume that if there is a further development a Statement will be made in this House immediately?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I would obviously wish to consult with the Chief Whip, and the usual channels would wish to be involved. However, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord and the House how seriously the Government take the issue of informing Parliament.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, has my noble friend any further information about action proposed at the United Nations on the subject of the hostages?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I presume that my noble friend is talking about the hostages held by Iraq.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, yes.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, they are being held in flagrance of international law. We are trying to exert every pressure to make sure that they are released as soon as possible.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may declare a slight interest. I have recently become the chair of the Middle East Committee of the Refugee Council in succession to my late, dear friend Lord McNair. Is the noble Earl aware that the refugee problem is not confined merely to Jordan? It has an enormous effect on the economies of recipient countries such as Egypt and Bangladesh, not only in terms of the reabsorption of the refugees but also through loss of remittances which will arise from their having lost their jobs in Iraq and Kuwait.
Is the noble Earl aware that there are still about 1.6 million Egyptians in Iraq who are trying to get home?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I wish him well in his new job. Yes, we are well aware of the number of nationals involved from various countries. A number of countries have already applied to the United Nations under Article 50 of the UN Charter as a result of some of the problems which they face.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is always the danger that military action may lead to a full-scale war? That is why such action always has to be considered with the utmost care.
Perhaps I may reiterate the point made by my noble friend the Leader of the Labour Party about the anxiety, which I am sure is felt throughout the House, that we should be kept fully informed as soon as possible.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's question. I believe that I have answered it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, have the Government decided whether there should be specific United Nations authorisation of military action before it is taken by this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the situation with regard to that was firmly set out by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. Throughout we have acted in accordance with international law and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I fully endorse what the Minister said at the beginning of his Answer regarding the action of the United Nations, and we all applaud that. Do Her Majesty's Government consider that there are any circumstances, other than for the defence of this country, in which British troops could be deployed without the full sanction of the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have answered that question, which was the same as that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the greatest threat to the solidarity of those countries now supporting United Nations' action in the Middle East is yesterday's events in Jerusalem? Can the Minister indicate the way in which the Government view those events and what action they will take in the United Nations to make sure that they do not disrupt the alliance that has been successfully created?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the House was as shocked as were the Government by the extent of yesterday's violence. The noble Lord is right in saying that the problem needs to be resolved. However, it is absolutely clear that the first problem to be resolved must be to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait. We must obtain the unconditional withdrawal of the Iraq troops, the restoration of the legitimate Kuwaiti Government and free all the hostages.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a threat to a small country is a threat to us all? Referring to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that is why we are there.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The aggression must be stopped otherwise every country in the world will be under threat. We were asked to help.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some Members on this side of the House believe that it would be quite mad to say to the United Nations, "Please, sir, may we attack Iraq?"? I have never heard anything so daft.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord's point is well made.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with respect, the Minister did not answer my question when answering the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. In his answer to the noble Lord the Minister repeated what had been said in another place regarding the authority which the United Nations is alleged to have given to the use of British forces. I asked the question: do Her Majesty's Government consider that there are any circumstances, other than the defence of this country, in which British forces can be deployed without the sanction and full authority of the United Nations?
Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will know the international law and the resolutions that have been agreed by the United Nations Security Council. We shall act within international law.

Gross National Product: Exports
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of the British gross national product is earned through exports.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, in 1988 exports of goods and services accounted for 24 per cent. of the value of gross national product.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does that not contrast with the position in West Germany where more than two-thirds of the gross national product is accounted for by exports? Should we not be looking more at the way in which Germany achieved that position, particularly now that we are within the ERM? Is it not a fact that British industrial production for exports has decreased as a proportion of our gross national product during the past 20 years?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if one looks at the figures in constant 1985 prices, in 1980 the figure was 27.5 per cent. and in 1989 it was 28.3 per cent. However, it is also worth remembering that during the previous three-month period exports rose year on year by some 10 per cent. against imports, which rose by 0.5 per cent.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the agreement that exports are essential to this country can the Minister give the House a guarantee that any new arrangements which are proposed by the Export Credit Guarantee Department will not put British exporters at a disadvantage against their competitors?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I should be more than happy to answer if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, would care to table a Question.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree, with regard to a comparison with Germany, that the Germans work jolly hard?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I like to think that not only do the Germans work very hard but that your Lordships' House does so too.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures he gave this afternoon are at variance with those published in the official statistics in the government Blue Book for 1990, particularly those at page 13? There it is clearly stated that the percentage of exports to the gross national product referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, amounted in 1988 to 22.9 per cent. and in 1989 to 23.8 per cent. That is as distinct from the figure in 1979 which showed a percentage of exports to gross national product of 27.5 per cent. Will the Minister take steps to elucidate the difference between those two official figures, which his department can verify by inspecting the document to which I referred?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that the figures I originally quoted are entirely accurate. As I am sure many noble Lords are aware, the difficulty is that there are many different columns and we could enter into a lengthy but perhaps not entirely constructive debate. I return to the figures I quoted, which I believe to be entirely accurate. They related to the export of goods and services as a percentage of GNP but the noble Lord disagreed with what I said. The figure I have for 1980 is 27.5 per cent. and that for 1989 is 28.3 per cent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not one of the reasons for our bad performance in exports the fact that the pound has been overvalued against the deutschmark and other currencies for a long period of time? Is it not a fact that entry into the ERM will

277
institutionalise and set virtually in stone that imbalance and make it more difficult in the future for our exporters in world markets?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, stone does not have the property of being able to be flexible by 6 per cent. up or down.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many British exporters are anxious and seriously believe that the level at which we have entered the ERM—that is, 2.95 against the deutschmark as the mid point—is probably too high and will pose problems for British exporters in the longer term? Is the Minister also aware that exporters believe that even the movement up and down permitted within the ERM will not promote their best interests in exporting? Is not the rate of 2.95 more a product of the high interest rates in Britain caused by the necessity of remedying the Government's economic policies than of the appropriate level of sterling in world markets and, therefore, the best long-term interests of British exporters?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said in my Statement on Monday, the ERM will impose a discipline on the British manufacturing industry whereby it cannot look to price inflation to save the day. I am interested to note that within four days of our joining the ERM the Benches opposite are deciding whether they are happy with the rate at which we entered.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, whatever message my noble friend's answer may have given when he spoke in percentage terms, is it not a fact that since last year the volume of exports has continued to increase, and is not that the important issue that we should keep in mind?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, of course my noble friend is entirely correct because exports are not able to indulge in the same inflationary activities as occur in the domestic market. If domestic inflation is stripped out, the story as regards our exports over the 1980s is one of stability.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is not gross national product defined as domestic production plus imports, minus exports? Unless we have all three figures in front of us, the questions are liable to fall into confusion.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful for the intervention by the noble Earl because I believe that we are falling into some confusion with the comparative figures of only one of those three components which he mentioned.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord please review in Hansard the replies which he has given and the figures which I gave him? Will he undertake to explain the discrepancy between the figures which he has given and the official figures which are already enshrined in the book to which I referred?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am referring to figures which are drawn from official sources. If I am wrong
278
I shall be the first to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. However, I must say that I believe that he has got the wrong end of the stick.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the obvious need to continue to expand our exports, would the noble Lord indicate whether the Government have in mind to review the services to exporters rendered by the British Overseas Trade Board with a view to expanding and strengthening them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, makes a good point. However, I am not sure that that is entirely within the confines of this Question. If he wishes to table a Question, I shall be more than happy to answer it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in view of the well known inaccuracy of the official statistics, is not the whole of this argument somewhat unreal?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I like to think that, on the basis of Monday with the result of the Pickford Committee and further commitments made by the Chancellor, if the noble Baroness's suggestions are correct, rectification is already under way.

World Population
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking, in concert with other nations, to deal with the problem of increasing world population.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our overseas aid programme gives high priority to helping developing countries tackle population issues. Our expenditure on multilateral and bilateral population programmes has increased from £6.5 million in 1981 to £17.3 million in 1989, but many of our other aid activities indirectly influence population growth, especially health and education programmes. We intend to increase the level and quality of all our population-related assistance.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this year will see an increase of 90 million people on the planet, so exacerbating all of the terrible problems which the population explosion brings about; namely, hunger, death, environmental difficulties and so on? In accepting that the Government have made some contribution towards the problem, does the Minister realise that unless there is an increase in resources—and I appreciate the figures which the noble Earl has given—and an increase in political commitment and know-how by the advanced countries of the world, there will be a tragedy such as we have not yet seen on this earth?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the House of the seriousness with which the Government view this problem. The noble Lord has raised this matter before and it is a frightening statistic to realise that in my lifetime the population of the world has doubled. That was a figure which the noble Lord gave us on 9th May of this year. I hope that the noble Lord was reassured by the last sentence of my

279
original Answer; that is, that the Government will be making an announcement shortly about an increase in the level and quanlity of our assistance.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the factor which appears to bear most upon the readiness of populations to engage in sensible family spacing is the education of women? In the consideration of the aid programme, will my noble friend give ever increasing attention to the education of women in the developing countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises a most important point. I hope that I can reassure him that we certainly consider the role of women to be a very important factor not only in respect of the population assistance which we give but also in respect of all parts of the UK aid programme. We want them to be active and equal partners in development and my noble friend is right to say that improving their health education and status is crucially important if smaller families are to be encouraged.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the fact that some very important targets were agreed by the 71 world leaders who met at the World Summit for Children recently—some of them very relevant to the stemming of population growth—and in view especially of the target that there should be family planning advice for all couples, I am sure that the Minister will agree that men need education in family planning as well as women. As a result, will the Minister say what agreement there was as to the funding of those important goals, and, more specifically, will he say when Her Majesty's Government plan at least to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we appreciate that men as well as women have to be educated in certain areas and trained and encouraged in certain ways. I know that the noble Baroness would wish also to see an increase in the work of UNICEF which has done very good work with children. An extension of its work into family planning would be beneficial. We are fully aware of the target of 0.7 per cent. set by the UN; we shall continue to work towards that target depending on the economic circumstances of this country.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that extremely well educated men seem not to have got the message which he is trying to put across?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that everybody gets the message and makes a contribution.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as such a large part of the world problem arises within the Commonwealth, would it not be worthwhile considering what the Commonwealth Secretariat might do in order to spread information about how to deal with the problem?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point which I should like to consider at more leisure. I shall certainly bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend in another place. I should say to my noble friend that although
280
many areas of concern are within the Commonwealth, it is very much a world problem in which we all need to be involved.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, which is of the utmost importance and ask the Minister whether he will consider taking some special steps, perhaps with NGOs, to see in what way moneys could be made available for women's education in developing countries. The level of illiteracy within those countries is a very serious handicap and earmarked money for that purpose would be of the greatest help. I have no doubt that a number of organisations would be willing to collaborate with the Government in a campaign to raise the level of literacy of women within developing countries. That would probably help more than anything else.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. Of course I shall consider with care and bring to the attention of my right honourable friend what she said. I agree with the noble Baroness that NGOs have a vital role to play. Under the joint funding scheme the ODA is prepared to meet the full cost of population projects run by British voluntary agencies rather than 50 per cent. as in other sectors. The ODA's spending on population activities under the scheme has increased from £87,000 in 1978 to £641,000 in 1989.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that poverty is strongly associated with rapid population growth in developing countries? That is tied up with women's education. Poor countries cannot incor-porate family planning into their health services. Poor people cannot purchase contraceptive supplies. Does the noble Earl agree that the debt burden affecting most third world countries is one of the most important causes of world poverty? Can he give us a progress report on what Her Majesty's Government are doing to alleviate the debt burden in the third world?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord very cleverly linked the question of poverty and debt with that of population—a perfectly true point. However, his final question was much wider than that on the Order Paper. If he wishes to table a Question, I shall try to answer it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that all the work in education and population control—and I pay tribute to the increased percentage in our aid budget—is overtaken by poverty? History has shown that populations only stabilise when there has been a rise in the standard of living to such an extent that, for example, children do not die before the age of five. The noble Earl refers to the aim of the Government being to approach the 0.7 per cent. target of the United Nations. How are they approaching it? Over the past 11 years our aid budget has fallen from 0.53 per cent. to 0.32 per cent. Is that progress during the economic miracle?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I do not disagree with him on the question of poverty and the environment, and a

281
number of other issues that affect this very important matter. However, the noble Lord will be aware that there has recently been a substantial increase in our contribution.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, there is a Private Notice Question to come. We have had 33 minutes on Questions and I suggest that the time has come to move to the Private Notice Question.

London East-West Crossrail
3.12 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the East-West London underground Crossrail.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, as I informed your Lordships' House in Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Errol of Hale yesterday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given the go-ahead to the East-West Crossrail. This will be the first major British Rail gauge line to be built in the London area this century. It will cost £1.4 billion and will link Liverpool Street and Paddington.
My right honourable friend intends to safeguard both this Crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line through the planning system. In that way the Chelsea-Hackney line will be protected as an option for later implementation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making that statement to the House. I was aware that a Written Question had been answered yesterday. The rest of your Lordships will not be so aware. It did not appear in the Minute and has not appeared in Hansard. It is therefore useful to have that statement from the Government on the record of your Lordships' House.
If noble Lords have some difficulty in reading their notes this afternoon because the lighting is dim, I should explain that it is because the television cameras are not here. First, our proceedings are not being broadcast today and therefore television cameras are not present. Secondly, the television cameras are at a certain party conference where information is more readily given than to your Lordships' House.
It is unfortunate that when the noble Lord, Lord Errol of Hale, raised a Question on this subject in oral Questions on Monday, he was given an equivocal Answer. Yet the following day it was possible to give this information to the serried ranks of Conservatives gathered in Bournemouth. What a pity that when Parliament is sitting—and Parliament is sitting when your Lordships are sitting—this information is not given to us directly rather than having to be prised out by a Private Notice Question.
282
Perhaps I may also say in passing that I was surprised, and perhaps Her Gracious Majesty will also be surprised, to find that certain items of the gracious Speech were also announced to the Conservative Party conference yesterday; namely, that there is to be legislation to impose penalties—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Leader of the House makes the decision whether or not a Private Notice Question shall be asked. I readily acceded to the noble Lord's request. The noble Lord is pushing the rules of order a little, and perhaps would now like to move to the Question he wishes to ask.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I naturally accede to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House says. I am grateful for the opportunity to address this subject. It was necessary to make the point and I made it.
Let me say straight away that the Crossrail link is to be welcomed. It will reduce congestion, particularly around the Paddington area. One would like to see both Crossrail links put into action quickly. The unfortunate point about the statement is that we understand that the Bill—
Noble Lords: Order! Question!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am replying to a statement from the Government.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I will put my remarks in the form of a question. Can the Minister tell me why the legislative programme should be delayed for a further 12 months? Can the noble Lord say what will be the total cost of this rail link to the Exchequer? Is the noble Lord aware that while I welcome the rail link because of the reduction in congestion which will occur at Paddington as a result of the connection with the Heathrow link, nevertheless it is only a first step in sorting out the traffic problems of London? Is the noble Lord aware that it is a welcome step, but does not yet amount to a strategy for transport for London?
Lord Underhill: My Lords—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House a question. When we have a Private Notice Question is it not still a Question? Is it not entirely wrong for it to be turned into a statement?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is correct. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, turned to the terms of his Question, albeit a little belatedly. I suggest my noble friend Lord Brabazon replies to the noble Lord and we continue in the way suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall deal as briefly as I can with the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked. The first question was why a Bill will not be ready for deposit in November. The decision not to deposit a Bill until November 1991 should not be regarded as wasting a year. We expect London Transport and British Rail to use that time to good effect consulting fully with all those affected in

283
refining the design. That should minimise opposition to the Bill and help to ensure a smoother passage through Parliament.
The cost of the project is £1.4 billion at March 1990 prices. The noble Lord also asked about other steps to improve transport in London. This is only one of a number of schemes which are going ahead, including the Jubilee Line extension to Docklands; there is a Bill before another place now. The cost of that will be over £1 billion. There will be extensions of the Docklands Light Railway to Bank and Beckton, and major upgrading of existing network to make the best possible use of existing lines. That is to cost £1.8 billion and includes upgrading of the Central and Northern Lines, enlargement of key stations, more trains and lengthening of platforms on Network SouthEast.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I looked carefully at the Companion to the Standing Orders, and realised that a Private Notice Question should not be the subject of general debate. However, there are a number of questions I should like to ask the Minister arising from the welcome Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
I was in a position yesterday to listen to the television broadcast of the Secretary of State's statement to the Conservative conference. I was amazed when I heard the statement made regarding the acceptance of the Crossrail link in the light of questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Errol of Hale, and the supplementary questions.
I respect the integrity and honesty of the Minister now before us, but I should like to ask whether the department was aware that an announcement was to be made to the Conservative Party conference yesterday. If so, did the Secretary of State give instructions that no Statement was to be made to this House on Monday so that it could be made to the Conservative Party conference yesterday?
My next question is this. The Secretary of State made clear that he was content for this legislation to wait until November 1991 before its introduction in this House. I happened to be looking at the business plan of LRT published in March this year in which LRT was confidently expecting that the Bill would be introduced to Parliament this November. We are informed this morning in certain organs of the press that the department gave instructions some months ago not to proceed with the Bill this November. Will the Minister say whether or not that is correct?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the Question I answered on Monday, I believe I was very clear. I said in my original Answer to my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to make an announcement shortly, and that is exactly what he did.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have stood at this Dispatch Box on previous occasions and been criticised for using words such as "shortly" and
284
"soon" when events have taken weeks or months. This time I have been able to do better, and I hope that your Lordships are pleased about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the Bill. I have already spoken about the deposit of a Bill in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. However, it is the case that if it had been possible to take decisions on the East-West Crossrail earlier, it might have been possible to deposit a Bill this year. As I have already made clear, the sums involved are extremely large and the project had to be considered alongside other competing claims during the public expenditure discussions.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, as the originator of this whole subject, may I say that I tabled my Question in all innocence in order to seek information about the project. I am delighted to have learned so much. However, will my noble friend arrange for the immediate publication of an up-to-date map of where the East-West Crossrail is likely to go? At present we are solely reliant on the sketch plan in the Central London Rail Study which was published almost two years ago.
My noble friend did let fall that the tunnel will now conform to the British standard rail loading gauge, which was not indicated in the original scheme. Does that mean that freight trains will now be permitted to use this crossrail link during night hours and thereby further disturb the peace and tranquility of those unfortunate enough to live immediately above it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as my noble friend said, we have a sketch plan in the Central London Rail Study which was published last year. A more detailed and technical report will be available shortly and I shall make certain that my noble friend receives a copy. When I say "shortly", I am speaking in terms of about a week or so.
In regard to the carriage of freight, I regret that I do not have an immediate answer for my noble friend and I will have to write to him.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the interests of the House as a whole perhaps I may turn to the constitutional point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and, indeed, by the noble Lord in his reply. Is it not the case that, when the Minister replied to his noble friend on Monday, Ministers knew perfectly well that a statement was to be made by the Secretary of State at the Conservative Party conference on Tuesday? Further, is it not the constitutional position that when this House is sitting, Parliament is sitting? Therefore, the way that this matter has been handled is, in my view, unquestionably in contempt of this House. The least that the noble Lord can do on behalf of the Government is to apologise to the House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if I have offended the House then, of course, I apologise. I have already referred to what I said on Monday in my reply to my noble friend. I was then able to answer a Written Question from my noble friend which was available yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately it has not yet been printed in Hansard because Written

285
Questions are not printed in Hansard if the House sits too late, as it did last night. It was, of course, available elsewhere in the House.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that for many of us the fact that the statement has been made is extremely welcome and that that is much more important than where it was made? Secondly, can my noble friend give further information about the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. From what one has read so far there has been no indication that it will be possible for trains on that railway, when it has been approved and built, to continue on to Liverpool Street, yet I know that that has been in the minds of Ministers. Can my noble friend throw any light on that matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for welcoming the announcement, however it was made. It is, of course, a major project from whatever angle one looks at it. The Heathrow Express Railway Bill is currently being considered in another place. I understand—I am open to correction —that it is not proposed that the Heathrow Express railway should join with the new East-West Crossrail. If I am wrong, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as it appears that the debate has now been widened by one or two noble Lords, perhaps I may put a further question. In his speech to the Conservative Party conference yesterday why did not the Secretary of State make any reference to how this project will be funded? I understand that a statement was made by LRT spokesmen yesterday that public funds are essential if this project is to proceed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the line will indeed be publicly funded. It will cost £1.4 billion of public funds.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, there now seems to be general agreement in this House that the announcement that has been made is welcome and that your Lordships have not been left to learn about it entirely from the Conservative Party conference. As that is due entirely to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Tordoff in asking this Private Notice Question, will not the Leader of the House consider whether he should withdraw? It really was an intolerably portentious rebuke of my noble friend.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the situation is entirely clear. The position that my noble friend Lord Brabazon took in answering Questions has been covered. An arranged Parliamentary Question was then tabled in order to treat the House with every courtesy, which was answered but not printed for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. Under those circumstances I did not hesitate in agreeing to the Private Notice Question today.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Lord apply himself to the point that I put to him and not to an entirely different point?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry, but there is nothing that I can add to what I have already said.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the noble Lord believe that it would assist the House to consider more easily the constitutional implications which have been raised by carrying out an inquiry among former Cabinet Ministers in this House to see whether there are any who have not saved up juicy statements for party conferences?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have a question for the Leader of the House which arises from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, when putting his Private Notice Question. The noble Lord referred to the television cameras and said that they were not here in this Chamber today because they were at the Tory Party conference. This matter was raised on Monday by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition when he pointed out that the television cameras were not here on that day.
Yesterday they were in the Chamber to cover the Broadcasting Bill but, lo and behold, they have disappeared again today. No doubt they will not be here tomorrow.
A Noble Lord: Why not? We have the Broadcasting Bill tomorrow.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Of course, my Lords; thank you for the correction. There is a serious point here. This House is part of Parliament. I believe that we are entitled to be treated properly by the electronic media. If the television people—
Lord Denham: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am coming to that. If the Chief Whip will allow me to develop my argument I shall be much faster on the point that I wish to make.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the question I wish to ask—
Lord Denham: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Lord keeps heckling from the Front Bench—
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord realises that this House has its own rules. The same procedure applies to a Question of which private notice has been given; namely that questions must be asked and speeches must not be made. It is a perfectly simple request to make to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that he should put what he is saying in the form of a question. That is all I am asking and I hope that he will do that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, yes.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. He was pretty widely out of order because his question was not about the East-West Crossrail which is contained in the terms of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. If the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has a question on the East-West Crossrail I shall be delighted to try to amplify the replies of my noble friend Lord Brabazon.

287
Otherwise, the noble Lord must not pursue that line of questioning and we should move on to the next business.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, of course I defer to the Leader of the House. I had understood that the Private Notice Question was finished. I did not wish to mix up this point with that Question. Perhaps I may bring the matter to a conclusion. Bearing in mind that the broadcasters are playing fast and loose with this House, I wonder whether he and perhaps the House can ask the Broadcasting Committee to look at the whole question of the future relationship between the broadcasters and this House.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is very important that I should make the point that that matter does not arise from the present Question. It is very important that we do not have a running business session in the House. The Private Notice Question is finished. However, I shall be very happy to discuss with the noble Lord outside the House the matter which concerns him.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I ask the Chief Whip this question: is it in order to make speeches from a sitting position?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is not. As I am in a standing position at the Box perhaps I may now suggest that we move on to the next business.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 29 [Preliminary]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 29, line 36, at end insert:
("(e) a vehicle in or by means of which controlled waste is transported").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, let me lower the temperature immediately by saying that this is a probing amendment. It is not one on which we propose to divide the House, however unsatisfactory the reply may be from the Government Front Bench. I understand that noble Lords have to leave, but do they have to leave quite so noisily? I hope that noble Lords who remain in the House are paying attention to the Bill, if not to me. That is their privilege.
These two amendments arise from a discussion which took place at Committee stage of the Bill when answers were given by the Government to rather more wide-ranging amendments. Those answers were only partially satisfactory. The issue now before the House is whether or not there is a gap in the legislation for the transport of controlled waste. In this Bill there is provision for controls over controlled waste before it is transported by road and afterwards, but not while it is being transported.
When this was pointed out and the suggestion was made that it would be logical and sensible, in legislative terms, and helpful to those who are responsible for the control of waste if the legislation was all in one place and complete rather than coming from different places, Ministers replied to the effect that the controls contained in transport legislation were quite adequate for the purpose. They said that there was no reason whatever not to have environmental legislation first, transport legislation in the middle and environmental legislation at the end. I leave it to the House to judge whether that is a sandwich which is inside or out.
As a result of those replies we looked up the transport legislation which is supposed to cover these points. The position is still unsatisfactory. The danger with the transport legislation as it exists at the moment is that it does not cover all the material which can be transported under the name of waste; neither does it cover all types of vehicles and containers which can be used. The legislation concerned is that which covers the carriage of dangerous goods. It makes fundamental provision for the regulations concerning the construction of vehicles in which certain materials shall be transported. There are various other arrangements for proper labelling and, in certain circumstances, for notification of the transportation of particularly dangerous loads.
Dangerous goods cover a rather limited range of substances which cause particular problems if they are released or escape. As the House begins deliberation on Part II of the Bill it will know that controlled waste has a very much wider range of materials, some of which are highly toxic. For example, there are paint residues and various kinds of by-products from chemical manufacture. Some of the products, such as builders' rubble, are inert, yet they are still controlled waste. Environmental legislation provides for these inert and controlled waste substances to be controlled before and after they are transported but not while they are being transported.
That is the problem concerning the definition of controlled waste and the more limited definition under the regulations on the carriage of dangerous goods. The problem with vehicles is that the regulations only concern the containers and the vehicles, but they do not concern, for example, the carriage of builders' rubble in a skip which is neither a vehicle nor a container in the normal sense of the word. If builders' rubble conveyed in a skip is unleashed because of bad carrying practices that could result in pollution if the material is not appropriately disposed of. This Bill should cover that point.
These amendments are a good deal less wide-ranging than the amendments put forward at Committee stage. They seek to deal with that gap in the legislation, which I believe to be risky in terms of allowing certain kinds of controlled waste to be excluded from legislation. The present situation is also confusing. It is in the interests of those who are responsible for controlled waste that there should be one coherent body of legislation. Even if the Government do not agree with the terms of this

289
amendment, I appeal to them to consider once again whether it is desirable to have the legislation covering controlled waste in such a confusing and varied form. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I wish to support everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It would be preferable if the words of the amendment, or other similar words, were added to the Bill. That would cover the point made by the noble Lord.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55 and 69 reflect the concern of the House that Part II should control all aspects of pollution of the environment by waste. In this case, as in others, my answer is that the matter is already covered in the Bill or elsewhere.
On Amendment No. 55, the carriage of dangerous waste is covered by Department of Transport regulations. These are designed to ensure that when any dangerous substances, including waste, are carried by road, they are only carried safely and without risk of pollution. We do not wish to cut across those regulations. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was worried about some vehicles not being covered by the regulations. I am able to assure him that the carriage of dangerous goods regulations cover all sizes and all shapes of vehicles.
I appreciate that the transport regulations deal only with dangerous waste. We do not want to allow the careless transport of any waste, dangerous or otherwise. But this too is already covered. The duty of care in Clause 33 of the Bill governs all persons holding any "controlled waste"—that is, waste that is subject to Part II—except private householders in respect of their own waste. Part of that duty of care is a duty to:
"prevent the escape of the waste from his control or that of any other person".
This duty applies to, among others, persons who carry waste. It makes it a criminal offence for a carrier to permit an escape of waste from his lorry. I do not believe that adding an escape of waste from a vehicle to the environmental pollution prohibited under Part II would add anything worthwhile to these measures.
As regards Amendment No. 69, I can assure the House that the carriage of waste by any means, whether vehicle, camel or rucksack, will be subject to the duty of care under the present wording of Clause 33(1) without the suggested drafting amendment.
This is the first of our debates today on waste, an aspect of the environment where we are determined to see radical improvements stemming from the provisions of the Bill. I wish today to make an announcement that puts the Government's seriousness beyond any doubt. During our debates in Committee, there was considerable support for the view that government should offer financial support for WAMITAB, the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board, of which the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, is the active chairman. Since then, my honourable friend the Minister for the
290
Environment and Countryside has met with WAMITAB and discussed how best this vital question of waste qualifications can be carried forward. As a result of that meeting the board and the Department of the Environment have drawn up an agreed programme for developing the waste qualifications required to meet the criteria of technical competence for "fit and proper persons" under Part II of the Bill.
Under an agreement which began on 1st October my department has commissioned the board to develop over the next 18 months a complete range of new technical and professional qualifications and associated training courses for waste managers. These qualifications will be awarded to site managers and operators with the right combination of theoretical expertise and practical experience in pollution control measures at waste sites. Provided of course that the contract delivers the goods, the Government intend to approve these qualifications as evidence of technical competence, without which no waste management licensee will be allowed to operate.
The development of compulsory technical qualifications for the waste management industry, backed by law, is a major step forward in raising the standards of waste management in this country to a truly professional level. I welcome the support which WAMITAB has already earned from all sides of industry and local authorities. This £100,000 contract from Government is the clearest possible signal of how seriously we take our commitment to raise environmental standards.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he would not press the amendment. I hope that I have given an assurance that his concerns are covered either by the Bill or by regulations elsewhere and that I have allayed his fears on this matter.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that important statement amplifying the Government's position on "fit and proper persons". She will be aware that Amendment No. 132A which comes later in the Marshalled List sets out certain provisions that we wish to add to the legislation. Clearly we shall be dealing with that amendment considerably later this evening. I say with some trepidation in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that it might be for the convenience of the House if the Minister were to let me have a copy of that statement—it is a formal statement not related to this amendment—and perhaps put a copy in the Library so that it will be available for more informed debate when we come to it later this evening. Perhaps I may give way to the Minister so that she can respond.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I will make that rather brief statement available to the noble Lord in time for him to use it later in the debate. With the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer another of the noble Lord's questions. The regulations will cover any kind of vehicle. Whether materials are in or are falling out of a skip, if a skip is being transported on a vehicle, the regulations will cover that vehicle.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, my Amendment No. 124 deals with training matters. Having regard to the meeting which Professor Isaac had with the Minister of State for the Environment about a month ago, perhaps I may also have a copy of the statement.
Baroness Blatch: With the leave of the House, of course my Lords.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. To satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that all Members of the House should be treated properly, I am sure that the noble Baroness will wish to make the statement available in the Library of the House as soon as possible. It is important that our debates should be as well informed as they can be. I am glad to see that the precedent which was inadvertently set sometime last year is now accepted as a helpful one.
I am to a considerable extent satisfied with the further explanations about the transport of waste and with the assurances about the classification of waste and also about the definition of vehicular or non-vehicular means of transport. I am still puzzled as to why the noble Baroness refers to the duty of care as being the solution to this problem. It seems to me that the duty of care falls in a different part of the Bill and has different implications. Nevertheless, I think that she has gone some way to meeting the concerns of this amendment.
I still think that it is confusing for those who have responsibility for controlled waste to have to look to different sources of regulation, as they have to now, and to be required to look for transport regulation as well as for environmental legislation. I still find that aspect of the Government's response disappointing. I rather fear that those who are responsible for controlled waste will find it disappointing as well. We have gone as far as we can. On the basis of the reply we have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Authorities for purposes of this Part]:
Bareness Blatch Bareness Blatch moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 30, line 20, at end insert (", subject to section (Power to create regional authorities for purposes of waste regulation) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57 and, with the leave of the House, delay responding to Amendments Nos. 57A and 57B until after the House has debated those amendments.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 will, I am sure, be familiar to your Lordships following the extensive debate in Committee on the merits of regional waste authorities. My noble friend Lord Hesketh said then that discussions were to be held with the local authority associations on the best way of ensuring that the concerns of this House and of another place are met. Those discussions have progressed over the summer months and I am pleased to say that good progress is being made. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the
292
Environment announced in July that agreement had been reached on the need for voluntary co-operation through the establishment of voluntary joint committees, composed of members of the constituent authorities.
The Government remain firmly committed to the voluntary approach wherever possible and we are convinced that these committees offer the best way forward. These voluntary arrangements will provide the framework for the authorities to compare policies and standards and to integrate their waste disposal plans into a regional overview. The committees will be able to monitor the performance of their members and issue recommendations to those that may be falling behind. They will thus form the foundation on which the authorities will build the consistently higher standards which lie at the heart of this part of the Bill. Best of all, they avoid the need for potentially disruptive changes at the time when we most need authorities to concentrate on the job in hand.
Having said that, we nevertheless believe that reserve powers are necessary in case these voluntary arrangements fail. These amendments meet the commitment given by my noble friend Lord Hesketh in Committee that the Government would consider the need for reserve powers for this contingency. Although discussions with the local authority associations are at an early stage, and we have every confidence that they will succeed, we do not believe it would be right to lose this opportunity to provide reserve powers for the future.
Therefore, these amendments provide powers for the Secretary of State to set up regional authorities to undertake some or all of the functions of waste regulation authorities. It is our fervent hope that such powers will not need to be used. We have every confidence that the discussions currently taking place will provide a system on a voluntary basis to ensure that all authorities are operating to the required high standards. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I should like to say that this new clause is much welcomed. It so happens that I was recently chairing the first ever conference arranged by the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord will forgive my intervention at this point. I think that it would be better and lead to a fuller debate if my noble friend Lady David was now to move her Amendment No. 57A and speak also to Amendment No. 57B. These are amendments to Amendment No. 57. If we follow that course, the debate can take in both the Government's new clause as proposed by Amendment No. 57 and also the arguments contained in the amendments of my noble friend.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I apologise most sincerely to the noble Baroness. I did not see her attempt to rise to speak.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 57A as an amendment to Amendment No. 57.

293
Line 4, leave out from ("authorities")") to ("of") in line 5 and insert ("are failing to act in accordance with reasonable consistent standards in the performance").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 57A and 57B are designed to ensure that the reserve powers to impose joint waste regulation authorities contained in the Government's new clause cannot be invoked unless and until the county and metropolitan waste regulation authorities have had an adequate opportunity to implement the new system of regulation, and have actually failed to do so satisfactorily.
The new clause which is to be inserted after Clause 30 would empower the Secretary of State to create regional waste regulation authorities. It has been tabled in response to the view, rightly or wrongly held in some quarters, that waste disposal authorities are not sufficiently consistent in the standards they apply in performing their licensing functions under the 1974 Act. Those who hold that view, including a Select Committee in another place, have argued that the regulatory function should be removed from existing local authorities and given to new ad hoc regional authorities.
The Government have decided—wisely, in the view of the local authority associations—not to adopt that course. Instead, they propose to take these reserve powers, meanwhile encouraging the local authorities to set up voluntary regional groupings to ensure consistent standards among the authorities in each region. That is already a familiar method of working in matters such as strategic planning.
The new clause gives cause for concern because it is wholly open-ended. The Secretary of State can exercise this power —supposedly a reserve power, to be activated only if the present authorities do not deliver what is asked of them—"if it appears" that the authorities,
"could with advantage make joint arrangements".
Surely these very great reserve powers should be capable of being triggered only if the authorities can actually be shown to be in default. Moreover, the authorities should be given a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate that they have achieved these consistent standards, although they intend to set up the joint machinery well in advance of the legislation coming into force. Both preconditions—that is, actual default and the time threshold, both of which appear in my amendments—should appear on the face of the legislation.
The amendments proposed originate from the Association of County Councils. However, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities supports them. It too dislikes the open-ended nature of the Government's amendment. I understand that a meeting was held this morning and that the local authority associations are willing to give their support to the voluntary grouping of waste regulation authorities across metropolitan and shire areas, subject to detailed discussions on boundaries, composition, staffing of groupings and the final
294
implications. I received a message to that effect just after the business of the House commenced this afternoon.
I hope very much that the Minister will be able to accept these two sensible conditions which I believe the local authority associations would like to see implemented. Otherwise, what is proposed appears to be a high-handed as well as an open-ended clause.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I regret to say that I am rather concerned about this proposed new clause. I shall speak mainly to Amendment No. 57. The reason for my concern is that I am unhappy about the expression "a regional authority". A regional authority in Scotland—that is, if this clause is to apply to Scotland—has a very different meaning and is the equivalent of a county council in England. Therefore, I believe that this aspect could cause some confusion.
I suggest to my noble friend Lady Blatch that she has a choice in the matter: either she chooses another expression such as "a joint authority"; or, perhaps, she could use the same words as appear at the end of Clause 31, which read:
"This section shall not apply to Scotland".
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps this will be third time lucky, and it is to be hoped that I shall be able to say a few words on the matter. This proposed new clause was published on the very day when I was chairing the first conference of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors. This body has played an extremely positive and important role in the formulation of the policy which led to Part II of the Bill. I think that I shall be reflecting what was said at the conference when I say that the members of that association are totally committed to achieving the highest standards of waste disposal. They very much welcome the tighter regulation which the Bill contains in order to—if I may put it colloquially—curb the activities of cowboys, some of whom have done a great deal of damage to the reputation of what is by any standards a very important industry.
However, I must point out that it is not only the cowboys who have damaged this reputation; indeed, some national companies have done so. In fact, in this respect, I was involved in a case concerning the Roding Valley. If Lord Jenkin of Roding cannot take part in action to protect the Roding Valley from desecration, then who can? Those concerned paid the price and failed to obtain an extension of their licence to tip because the evidence showing how much it had been abused clearly had a major impact upon the inspector at the appeal and on the Secretary of State. Therefore, as I said, this new clause is very much to be welcomed.
On the question of regional authorities, the new clause was certainly welcomed. There is a recognition that there needs to be a closer co-ordination within the regional areas. I know that the association would have liked a more positive national policy, but I happen to believe that the Ministers are right in not going down that road. In my view, there needs to be a strong element of local accountability in both the regulation

295
and the disposal. That element would have been eroded to the point of disappearance if one had had national arrangements.
However, perhaps the message which came through most clearly in many of the addresses which were delivered to the conference to which I have referred was the fact that there remains a great deal of detail to be filled in. I understand that all sorts of guidance is to be provided. We heard an important statement this afternoon made by my noble friend regarding "the fit and proper person" and the role of WAMITAB. I hope that I too may receive a copy of that document. There are also many other matters upon which the department has undertaken to give guidance. I refer to the standards to be attained by the regulating authorities and a range of related matters, some of which are referred to in the White Paper on the environment.
Many of those who are actively and responsibly involved in the industry have said that it is extremely difficult for them to plan their operations effectively —especially their investment—until the guidance is made available. The White Paper makes the point that a great deal more investment is needed in the industry.
I sense that the proposed new clause is hanging on the issue of the power of the regional authority. However, I hope that my noble friend can give some assurance that the department will have the necessary skilled manpower and cash resources available. In that way the process of giving guidance to the industry and to the regulation authorities can be conducted with due dispatch and the whole function and purpose of Part II of the Bill can be carried through as swiftly as possible. If my noble friend can give that assurance I know that it will be welcomed by those who will properly and responsibly do their best to try to comply with the new regulatory environment which the Bill sets up. There is anxiety that the resources will not be available within the department and the regulatory authorities to be able to do that as swiftly and as effectively as I believe Ministers would wish.
4 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 57 which I broadly welcome. It is clear that the Government set great store by the voluntary arrangements. It makes good sense to come to those arrangements, because resources, both of people and finance, are not limitless. At the conference to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding referred, which I attended, anxiety was expressed about the guidance. The anxiety was not in terms of whether the department had the resources to produce the guidance but whether it would be available in time for the various parties to take account of it.
On Monday we heard from my noble friend the Minister about the recruitment of staff to HMIP. The National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors made it abundantly clear at its conference that it had training programmes in place and could meet the demand from its end. There should not be the concern about resources per se. As I understand it, the power
296
to be given to the Secretary of State is a reserve power. I understand from correspondence that has been exchanged between me and the department that it is considered to be a long stop. My noble friend the Minister made that point when she introduced the amendment. I do not share her confidence, but that is beside the point. The powers are there.
I cannot see why those powers as set down in the amendment cannot remain as they are. They are neat and tidy. If one goes on to make special arrangements for Scotland—my noble friend Lord Balfour will agree, if he looks at Clause 52, that special arrangments are in place for Scotland—and adopts the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, that will merely confuse the issue and charge and counter charge will follow. It will be self-evident as to whether a voluntary arrangement has been put in place, and if it has not the Secretary of State has powers to make the necessary orders. I believe that that is all we need. I should be happy were the House to accept the amendment moved by my noble friend as it stands.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have not previously spoken on this part of the Bill but I have listened with interest to the discussion. I think that my noble friend the Minister should pay attention to what my noble friend Lord Balfour has said. The wording of Amendment No. 57 will cause confusion in Scotland, and as I read the Bill the clause applies to Scotland. I presume that the Scottish local authorities have been consulted and welcome it. I have no reason to think otherwise. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady David, consulted the Scottish local authorities before she put down her amendments, but they would obviously also have an interest in them.
With regard to Amendment No. 57, it is merely a question of clarifying what a region means. A regional authority is made up of district authorities and is the upper tier of local government, as my noble friend Lord Balfour said. It could be confusing. A small alteration to the wording would doubtless clarify the matter. The House need not make a meal of that at the moment.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was supporting the amendments so ably put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and which I support. All they are asking for is time for the local authorities to try to come up with their own schemes. I understand that the Government need reserve powers in case they find that the waste management arrangements between authorities are breaking down and they need to step in. All that is being asked for is adequate time to discuss these matters which are complex.
I have never represented a mainland authority, but trying to find holes in the ground in a place like the Isle of Wight was awful. We considered all sorts of ideas such as transporting the waste to Oxfordshire. I am glad to say not Cambridge! In the end we built our own plant. These matters take time. I am sure that the Minister will be sympathetic to that point. I hope that

297
she will take on board the amendments which the ACC and AMA are anxious to see written into the Bill.
Baroness White: My Lords, I too had the privilege of attending the conference presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Perhaps I may ask today a question I asked there. Does the amendment moved by the Minister cover Wales? Are parts of Wales to be called regional?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall begin by welcoming the comments made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding on the government amendments. I agree with him that that way forward is a real one. I also noted with some feeling the points that he made: first, about the urgent need—this point was also made by my noble friend Lord Lucas—for the guidance and the fact that the industry is anxious to receive it. I can give the assurance that the department is actively making arrangements to staff up for the implementation of the Bill as soon as possible, and the preparation of the guidance is very much in hand.
Perhaps I may also address the point made by my noble friend Lord Balfour which was supported by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. As always, my noble friend Lord Balfour is most astute in these matters. The clause applies to Scotland and the Scottish Office, but there is no need to change the phrase "regional authorities"; it is merely a convenient label for the purpose of drafting the clause. It does not mean that the authorities must be called regional authorities. They may have a variety of names. There is no stipulation as to the names they may choose to use. They may be called joint waste regulation authorities. That is not precluded by the Bill.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. My noble friend Lord Balfour made the point not that the difficulty could not be overcome but that it would cause some confusion. Is there a need to leave even a modicum of confusion when the matter could be put right by the addition of another word?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding of the point is that to stipulate that the authorities should be called regional authorities would cause confusion because of the very point made by my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lady Carnegy. If we stipulated that they should be called regional or joint authorities there would be a difficulty. Choosing the name will be a matter for local determination. What is essential is that the committees work and deliver the service.
I can also say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the Bill of course covers Wales and the explanation of what the committee is called will apply to Wales as it does to Scotland and England.
Amendments Nos. 57A and 57B are both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. They appear to be fairly minor amendments to the amendment we have just debated, giving the Secretary of State a reserve power to set up regional waste regulation authorities.
298
Amendment No. 57A would restrict the grounds on which the Secretary of State's reserve powers could be used to cases where existing regulation authorities were not consistent. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness really wishes to place such a restriction on the use of a reserve power which was widely called for both here and in another place. It is true that one of the key arguments in favour of regional waste regulation authorities is the need to secure consistent waste regulation standards, but that is not the only reason, as I explained earlier.
This amendment could also be cited in defence of authorities whose standards were consistently reasonable. We all want standards of regulation to be raised to the highest levels. This amendment could impede that process of improvement. For that reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Turning to Amendment No. 57B, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, this is a further restriction on the use of the reserve power to create regional regulation authorities. As I believe was made perfectly plain earlier in the debate, we have no intention of rushing in to use this power. If satisfactory voluntary arrangements can be made by the voluntary authorities themselves, we prefer to leave it at that.
Perhaps I may take the liberty of illustrating one area of the country where a regional voluntary committee works extremely well. It is the region from which both the noble Baroness and I come—East Anglia. The standing conference for East Anglian local authorities works extremely well, as I am sure SERPLAN 2 works well, in that it takes on regional issues and co-operates across county and district government in a productive way. That is a good example of the kind of voluntary arrangements I believe will spring up as a result of the Bill.
However, by the same token, if no satisfactory arrangements are made the Secretary of State must be able to use this power as soon as is necessary. I cannot accept an arbitrary time-limit of three years as proposed in this amendment. There are many people who would argue that we should have used this opportunity to create regional waste regulation authorities right away. The Government remain convinced that existing regulation authorities should be given the chance to show that they can work together to implement the higher standards of waste management provided for in this Bill. I assure noble Lords now that voluntary arrangements will be given a good chance to work, but if no arrangements are made or if those arrangements fail to deliver, the Secretary of State must be able to act to create regional authorities.
I believe that we are all at one in terms of the objectives of this part of the Bill. We are talking about means to an end and I hope that the noble Baroness will take on trust that authorities will be given time to create these productive committees. However, at the end of the day, if they are not working the sooner the Secretary of State puts it right the better.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble Friend sits down, and with the leave of the House, will she take another look at this matter? I am perfectly prepared to back the amendment, but quite frankly I do not believe that she is right in saying that there will be no confusion in Scotland. "Regional authority" simply means a local government area. The legislation will have to be referred to all the time.
I should have thought it quite unnecessary to word the provision in such a way that in one part of the country it is extremely confusing. These could perfectly well be called joint authorities or something similar. Perhaps my noble friend will look at this point and consult the Scottish Office to make certain that they are happy about it. Maybe they have been consulted, but the noble Baroness's reply seems to me to be rather strange. I imagine the Bill will operate in that way when it becomes law.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for information as this is a new clause. Which is the regional authority to cover the capital city? Perhaps the Minister will write to me.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take my noble friend's point first. We have tried hard not to be over-prescriptive in the matter and to provide for different parts of the country which will differ as to the size of the areas they cover. However, I take note of what m y noble friend said. I shall take the wording back and look at it between now and Third Reading, without commitment, as she will understand.
The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is that this has been the subject of considerable discussion with the authorities, particularly the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I un-derstand that there has been agreement, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said a moment ago, that the metropolitan areas will have to work across boundaries with their county neighbours. It is envisaged that a single metropolitan area will not form a regional tier, a regional committee, but the metropolitan areas will agree to work with their neighbouring shire authorities.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I am entirely in agreement. The objectives are the same. I believe I said that both the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities are quite content that this clause should be in the Bill. However, they wanted some reassurance that they would be treated with consideration. That seems to me to be quite reasonable. Surely both local and central government should want to get on with and consider each other.
The noble Baroness has given some reassurance. I should like to read what she has said and consult the two associations to find out whether they are satisfied with what the Minister has said. If not, I shall have to come back at the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment No. 56 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert:
("(4A) In exercising his powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the promotion of recycling waste, and to the maintenance of any existing arrangements for such recycling.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56A, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 87A. I believe that there would be no argument that one of the objectives of this important piece of legislation must be to encourage all desirable initiatives which will improve the environment. I welcome the announcement that the Government have decided to set up the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson.
However, I specifically wish to refer under these two amendments to the discouraging impact which certain clauses could have on local authorities which have already shown considerable success in the environmental field. I refer to recycling. In the Second Reading debate on the Bill which took place on 18th May last, I referred to the case of the borough of Richmond upon Thames which had developed a successful operation in recycling. Its efforts in that regard could be frustrated if the various relevant provisions in the Bill go through unamended.
I have since informed myself of what that local authority—and there are many others—has achieved in this field. I believe that your Lordships will be interested to know what it has been doing. It now has no fewer than 54 paper banks; 19 bottle banks; 12 rag banks; nine save-a-can banks and 90 Alcan aluminium can banks. That gives it the best recycling facilities in London and makes it one of the top recycling boroughs in the country. Alcan chose Richmond for the launch of its can bank scheme. The borough now recycles 8 per cent. of its household waste in comparison with a national average of 2 per cent. It recycles 30 per cent. of its glass waste and 20 per cent. of its paper waste, and its aim is to recycle 25 per cent. of all household waste within four years.
This is well within the target set by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his important statement at the Conservative Party conference last year. Thus one would have thought that this borough—which has not only achieved a great success but is paying for it out of the operation and earning more which it is putting back into further initiatives—should be encouraged in this endeavour. Unfortunately, under the terms of the legislation it is likely to have to give this up.
In replying, the noble Baroness will say that the borough could well contract out the service. However, if it were to contract out the service it would lead to a severe diminution in the impetus that has now been created. A large number of the recycling banks to which I have referred are located on local authority grounds. Therefore any third party that attempted to take them over under the terms of the legislation

301
would find that all kinds of questions were raised as regards negotiations. In my view we must decide our priorities. Is it our priority to encourage every possible form of environmental improvement, whether undertaken by local authorities or by the private sector, or is it our objective to inhibit local authorities which already have a proven record in this field—I could mention Sheffield, but there are many others —from proceeding in the direction on which they have already so successfully embarked? The amendments are modest. They are intended to help to achieve what must be the fundamental purpose of the legislation which is to encourage all those who have a proven record in improving the environment, particularly with regard to recycling. I commend the amendments to the attention of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, Amendment No. 56A is certainly a constructive amendment and should be looked at with sympathy. It does not matter whether the words of the amendment are correct, because I am sure that the spirit behind it is right. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that this is a modest amendment in the sense that its operative words are,
"the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the promotion of recycling waste".
Those words seem reasonable enough. The amendment points in the direction that I believe everyone would wish to go. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be sad if we allowed the Bill to go through if it interfered, even marginally, with the efforts that are being made in many quarters to encourage and develop recycling. For what it is worth, I suggest to my noble friend that the amendment is modest and constructive. The spirit of the amendment should be included in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to add my support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I have a local interest in the amendment, too. As the noble Lord said, Richmond is a member of the statutory West London waste authority whereas my borough of Haringey is a member of the statutory North London waste authority and finds itself in exactly the same position as Richmond. When the statutory waste authority is disbanded, Haringey will become both a collection and a disposal authority and will, according to the terms of Clause 47(7) as drafted, no longer be able to undertake recycling work directly. It is true that Clause 47(7) states that a borough may make arrangements for a contractor to carry out the work. However, all that we know about recycling reveals that it is not very often a commercial proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is one of the leading experts in the country on this subject and I am sure he will confirm that I am right. For a recycling scheme to work there has to be, preferably, active management involvement on the part of local authorities and certainly financial management on their part.
I cannot believe that the Government intended that metropolitan boroughs which find themselves in this position, and whose status is changed by other parts of
302
the Bill, should be debarred from being directly involved in recycling work as they have carried this out successfully in the past. The provision also applies outside metropolitan areas. It applies to such cities as Leeds and Sheffield which are conspicuously good at recycling. I have no doubt there are other examples but I shall not attempt to draw up a list. The Government's intention surely is to encourage recycling. They should have the intention of rewarding those councils that have carried out recycling successfully. I cannot for the life of me see why this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, correctly described as modest and constructive, should not be adopted, at any rate in spirit, by the Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I wish to mention briefly the responsibility of local authorities, in particular as regards the recycling of refrigerators. I have mentioned before in the House the Bird group of companies which can recycle refrigerators. However, it can only do so—it has stated this to be the case publicly—when legislation exists which imposes a duty of recycling on local authorities. This is necessary as a result of the cost of the recycling. The recycling of refrigerators is an important part of the recycling process because it involves the CFCs within the refrigerators.
That company has stated categorically that it cannot proceed with its recycling work unless there is legislation. If this amendment were included in the Bill, it would at least go some way towards providing legislation which would enable not just the disposal of refrigerators to be carried out, but also the recycling of the CFCs which they contain to the benefit of the whole community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I shall do my best to try to put the minds of noble Lords who have commended this amendment at rest as regards why the Government still regard these two amendments as unnecessary. Amendment No. 56A standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would require the Secretary of State to,
"have regard to the … promotion of recycling waste, and to the maintenance of any existing arrangements for such recycling"
when exercising his powers,
"under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985".
This amendment is unnecessary because recycling arrangements are part of the overall arrangements for waste disposal. Therefore the Secretary of State is already under a duty to consider recycling. But the amendment goes further than this, and sets up a presumption in favour of the maintenance of existing arrangements. We cannot accept that this would be right. We know that there are many excellent schemes in the metropolitan areas for recycling and it is not the Government's intention to disrupt these schemes. It may be necessary to organise them rather differently; for example, plant and equipment for recycling in the metropolitan areas will be provided through arrangements with a contractor, either the authorities own LAWDC or a private sector company. But there

303
is no need for the schemes to cease to exist if they are indeed good schemes. The provisions of the Bill however allow this to be tested by allowing people to come forward with new ideas which might improve recycling.
Amendment No. 87A standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would delete subsection (7) from Clause 47. The effect of this would be to allow authorities which are both collection and disposal authorities to provide plant and equipment for sorting and baling waste. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 47 empowers collection authorities to provide certain plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste. However, where a collection authority is also a disposal authority that power is removed. The reason for this is that under the terms of the Bill waste disposal authorities will no longer be able to operate waste disposal facilities directly themselves. It makes little sense to allow an authority to provide facilities as a collection authority which as a disposal authority it would not be able to provide.
At issue here is how we treat those authorities which are both collection and disposal authorities; in particular we are talking about most borough councils in the former metropolitan counties and Welsh districts. The amendment seeks to treat them as collection authorities allowed to provide certain plant and equipment. The Government's view is that such authorities must be treated as disposal authorities for the sake of consistency. This will not prevent those authorities from ensuring that facilities for sorting and baling waste are available. They will simply make those facilities available by different means; that is by arranging with their LAWDC or a private sector firm to provide them on their behalf.
There is no reason why the clause as drafted should obstruct authorities which are both collection and disposal authorities from arranging for the sorting or baling of waste, nor from any other activity concerning recycling. They will simply organise it in a different manner, just like any other waste disposal authority.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that we are, of course, extremely pleased to hear that Richmond currently provides excellent recycling facilities. We can assure the noble Lord that those arrangements need not be adversely affected as a result of the Bill. Authorities like Richmond, which will be both collection and disposal authorities, will not be able to provide facilities directly themselves. However, they will be able to arrange for such facilities to be provided by contractors.
It is for those reasons that I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords not to press the amendments.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to the Minister, I should like to say that this seems a piece of bureaucratic nonsense which does not stand up to a common-sense examination. If the Minister really wanted to convince the House he could take Richmond as an example. My own borough of Fulham is also a very good disposal authority as well
304
as a collection authority. We have not been told which is the regional authority to which the metropolitan boroughs will have to report. How can we give powers to the Government when we do not know which authority will carry them out?
As usual we are told that there will be changes. Changes are not always for the better and are certainly always much more expensive. Who will foot the bill? —the unfortunate people living in the boroughs. The Minister will have to give a much more convincing answer to the noble Lord who moved the amendment before he will withdraw it.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, it seems absolute nonsense to break up very good schemes in places such as Richmond just because everything has to be done through private contractors.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I thought that we had agreed that the procedure on Report was that after the Minister had replied there would be no further continuation of the debate, otherwise we shall never get through the business.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I can now respond, having listened very carefully to what noble Lords have said in this short debate and in particular to what the Minister said. I, too, am extremely disappointed. The Minister couched his remarks, as he always does, in a conciliatory tone, but the fact remains that many very desirable initiatives for which the Bill exists have already been taken. Those who have taken them are now very discouraged and they do not face with equanimity the thought that they have to bring their initiatives to a stop and go through the lengthy process of finding others to carry out what they themselves have done with signal success.
I am very surprised that the Government are not prepared to accept what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, rightly described as a very modest amendment which is intended to take account of achievements already delivered in this very important area. I had hoped that the Minister would agree with the arguments put forward from all sides of the House in this short debate. I regret to say that I should like to put the amendment to the test.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.56A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Airedale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Aldenham, L.

David, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Attlee, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Birk, B.

Ezra, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Blease, L.

Foot, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Galpern, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Glasgow, E.

Carter, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gregson, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grey, E.

305

Hampton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Richard, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hayter, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hooson, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger, B.

Seebohm, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shackleton, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stedman, B.

Kintore, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Walpole, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mulley, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Oram, L.

Willis, L.

Parry, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Peston, L.

Winstanley, L.

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Harvington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Holderness, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beloff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kimberley, E.

Blatch, B.

Knollys, V.

Blyth, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Borthwick, L.

Layton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookes, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Norrie, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Palmer, L.

Derwent, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Effingham, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elibank, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Porritt, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Radnor, E.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

Richardson, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Romney, E.

L.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

Sharples, B.

306

Skelmersdale, L.

Terrington, L.

Slim, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strange, B.

Tryon, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Sudeley, L.

Wise, L.

Swansea, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
("Power to create regional authorities for purposes of waste regulation
.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State in the case of any two or more of the authorities mentioned in section 30(1) above that those authorities (in this section referred to as "relevant authorities") could with advantage make joint arrangements for the discharge of all or any of their functions as waste regulation authorities, he may by order establish a single authority (a "regional authority") to discharge such of those functions as may be specified in the order for the area comprising the areas of those authorities.
(2) A regional authority shall exercise the functions specified in the order establishing it on and after a day specified in the order and, so far as the exercise of those functions (if not withdrawn) and any subsequently-conferred functions is concerned, shall (in place of the relevant authorities) be the waste regulation authority for the purposes of this Part.
(3) The members of a regional authority shall be appointed by the relevant authorities in accordance with the order establishing it and no person shall be such a member unless he is a member of one of the relevant authorities.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order made with respect to any regional authority—

(a) confer or impose on it further functions;

(b) withdraw from it any functions previously conferred or imposed; or

(c) dissolve it;

and functions may be so conferred or imposed or withdrawn as respects the whole or any part of the authority's area.
(5) An order under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient, including provision for the transfer of property, staff, rights and liabilities.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness David Baroness David My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 57A, but I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 57A, as an amendment to Amendment No, 57, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 57B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 57, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 57 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 32, line 26, at end insert:
("(2A) Nothing in Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 insofar as it relates to expenditure for capital purposes as referred to in section 40 of that Act shall apply to a waste disposal company formed in accordance with subsection (2) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 58 also arises from a quite unsatisfactory discussion during Committee stage about the role, powers and responsibilities of local authority waste disposal

307
companies. We put forward amendments at Committee stage which tried to remove the arm's length status from local authority waste disposal companies, because we argued that it would be far better if they were wholly owned subsidiaries of their controlling authorities.
The Government argued that the arm's length status of the local authority waste disposal companies, which are called by the nasty acronym of LAWDCs, was appropriate, because in that way they would be subject to the full effect of the market rather than be protected by the controlling authority.
That is an argument and it is not the position that I would wish to take. However, if that were what the Bill provided, we would have to recognise a difference of political judgment and ultimately let the matter go. Unfortunately, that is not the case. What is happening is that LAWDCs are to be arm's length companies, but they will still be constrained by the ability of the parent authorities to provide capital for them. All the elements of competition are there, except the power of a LAWDC to raise capital for the development and conduct of its services.
If the Government's argument about the competitive spirit is to have any effect, the LAWDC should have the right to take its own decisions about whether capital investment in facilities is necessary, and to decide whether the funds should be raised on the open market. What we are proposing in these amendments is quite different from what we proposed at Committee stage. We are proposing now that the LAWDCs should be freed from any capital constraints which may be placed upon the parent authorities.
What is happening is the worst of all possible worlds. We have LAWDCs forced into the private sector with one hand tied behind their backs. Lest anybody should think that this is a theoretical point, the capital element of waste disposal is enormously important. For example, a full scale waste incinerator can easily cost £50 million. A new landfill site with the servicing which is required, including, quite possibly, roads to and from the site, reception facilities, testing laboratories, weighbridges and so on, can easily cost many millions of pounds.
Local authorities, as is well known—it is the Government's political policy—are very severely constrained in the amount of capital that they are able to spend. If the LAWDCs are included within those capital constraints, then they will not be able to make proper investment decisions and will not be able to compete properly in the marketplace. The result will be that people who need to use the services of the waste disposal contractors—and that is all of us—will get something less than the best available service at the best possible price. What we are seeking to do by this amendment is to remove the constraint.
It is possible for some assessment to be made of the environmental benefits which would require capital expenditure, and it is certainly possible that there could be some sort of control by the Secretary of State to ensure that capital expenditure reflects real needs
308
for environmental benefit. We are certainly not opposed to proper scrutiny of capital expenditure, but we want the capital expenditure to be available where it is justified, on the basis of the activities of the local authority waste disposal company, rather than be put into the queue with other forms of local authority capital finance. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to exempt LAWDCs from the local authority capital finance controls. This is a subject which was explored during earlier debates in another place on this Bill, and before that in very full debates in your Lordships' House and in another place during the passage of the Local Government and Housing Bill, now the 1989 Act.
I do not intend to go over the same ground at great length today. Suffice it to say that a major part of any government's economic policy must be to control public expenditure. Current local authority waste disposal operations are already subject to the capital finance regime, so these controls on local authorities are not new. LAWDCs will be set up as arm's length companies controlled by local authorities. It is only right and proper therefore that while LAWDCs continue to be controlled or influenced by local authorities they should be subject to the local authority capital finance rules. This general point was made, and accepted, during the passage of the Local Government and Housing Bill; and, again, because these companies are, to some extent, underwritten by the local authorities.
It should also be remembered that if an authority chooses to relinquish control or influence of its LAWDC, the capital finance rules no longer apply. In this way, significant new private investment can be brought into waste disposal to meet the new higher standards which public sector regulators will concentrate on enforcing.
Responding to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about LAWDCs being subject to the parent authorities' capital controls, the managers of the facilities will be in no different position in a LAWDC than in their parent authority. In either case, they will be subject to capital controls. If the authority was willing to make the capital available for inhouse operators, it should be willing to do so for a LAWDC.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with due respect, the last part of that answer is beside the point. Of course it is true that a LAWDC will be in the same position as a local authority department. The point is that a LAWDC will be in competition not with other local authority departments, but with the private sector. If the Government intend there to be arm's length operation, whether it is fully privatised or not, then the Government must ensure that there is a level playing field. They must ensure that a LAWDC which is competing to carry out waste disposal work is doing so on equal terms with a potential contractor from the private sector. That is not what is achieved by the Bill as at present drafted.

309
It is almost pointless for the Government to put in this provision for arm's length operation for a LAWDC unless they are prepared to provide the same opportunity for sensible capital investment by a LAWDC as is available to a private contractor.
The Minister says that she will not go over the ground of the 1989 Act. Indeed, I do not want to do that any more than she does. However, she is not correct in thinking that at the time of the 1989 Act we were all in agreement that the kind of privatisation or near privatisation which was proposed by the Government was the best solution for local government. In so far as there has yet been experience of the implementation of the 1989 Act—and I agree that it is limited—such evidence as there is shows that we were right and the Government were wrong. What has happened is that much of the back-door privatisation has been unsuccessful or, in even more cases, abortive.
I do not find the Minister's answer satisfactory either historically or in relation to the present Bill. I believe that the right thing for me to do is to take the opinion of the House.
4.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kintore, E.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McNair, L.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Oram, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, 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.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glasgow, E.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

[Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Gregson, L.

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

310

Whaddon, L.

Willis, L.

White, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Williams of Elvel, L

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Kimberley, E.

Auckland, L.

Knollys, V.

Balfour, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Long, V.[Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Margadale, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brookes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Butterworth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Nelson, E.

Caithness, E.

Norrie, L.

Caldecote, V.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Orkney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Chavendish of Furnesss, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Coleraine, L.

Porritt, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pym, L.

Craigavon, V.

Radnor, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Reay, L.

Craigton, L.

Renton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renwick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Richardson, L.

Davidson, V.[Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L.

Romney, E.

Derwent, L.

St. Davids, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Selborne, E.

Effingham, E.

Sharples, B.

Elibank, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Slim, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Forester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of

Swinfen, L.

Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tranmire, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Holderness, L.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.59 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 32, line 38, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 59 and 139 need not detain us long. They simply clarify the position that, to be exempt from the requirement to set up a LAWDC, a disposal authority must cease to provide both places and plant and equipment for dealing with waste. Ceasing to provide one or the other is not sufficient.
Amendment No. 60 simplifies the procedure for authorities which do not wish to set up a LAWDC because they have already made or propose to make alternative arrangements. It has never been the Government's intention to force authorities to set up a LAWDC where, for example, they have already set up a waste disposal company. Our only concern is that any such company should be bound by the same general rules that apply to LAWDCs: that they should be run as arm's length companies and that there should be no restrictions on the sale of their securities. The amendment allows authorities to submit details of alternative arrangements that they may have made and for the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that those general rules have been adhered to, without the need for a detailed transfer scheme as the clause currently requires.
Amendment No. 138 is consequential upon Amendment No. 60. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 32, line 41, leave out from ("apply") to end of line 2 on page 33 and insert ("in a case falling within paragraph (a) unless it appears to the Secretary of State that—

(a) the form of the company and the undertaking transferred are satisfactory; and

(b) the requirements of subsections (8) and (9) below are fulfilled;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 33, line 13, after ("and") insert ("where it appears to the Secretary of State that no satisfactory arrangements have been made between those persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 61A. I shall try to resist the temptation into which I am sure that others will seek to lead me of repeating the arguments about compulsory competitive tendering contained in the 1988 and 1989 Acts.
Amendment No. 60A states that the tendering procedures for local authority waste disposal companies shall be entered into,
"where it appears to the Secretary of State that no satisfactory arrangements have been made between those persons".
—the different authorities concerned.
Amendment No. 61A defines "satisfactory" in the following line as meaning,
"satisfactory by reference to the need to maintain and improve efficient waste disposal operations in any area, having regard to environmental consideration".
We have already had substantial debates about compulsory competitive tendering and that is extended by the Bill to waste disposal. Waste disposal functions will have to be put out to tender according to the terms of the Bill. If there is competitive tendering any waste disposal firm is able to compete, including a firm set up by a local authority—that is the local authority waste disposal company (LAWDC).
However, the individual authority decides who should be invited to tender. That is what happens under the Local Government Act 1988. The 1988 Act was designed to ensure that direct local government operations were exposed to competition with the private sector. It applied only where the service was carried out by the local authority. But that is not the case with waste disposal. There is no possibility of the local authority having carried out waste disposal in the same sense. The 1988 procedure is being adapted for a purely contractual situation.
It is a fundamental change in local authority contract law. It is being introduced without consultation with local authority associations either about why it should be necessary or what it means. If that principle were adopted, there is no reason why all local authority contracts should not be treated in the same way. That would mean a considerable increase in bureaucracy and administrative work.
We are therefore trying to ensure, for the last time, that the creation of LAWDCs is not the only system put forward for the operation of waste management. We are trying to avoid the situation—which goes well beyond the original compulsory competitive tendering procedures—whereby the compulsory transfer is followed by tendering from which the authority is excluded. That does not seem to us a clean break from having a local authority service and turning it into a commercial service. It is a tendering procedure in which everything is weighted against a local authority setting up a company, however efficient and well managed.
That again would lead to a worse service than would otherwise be available from a free tendering situation. It would be to the detriment of those who use waste disposal services. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 60A and 61A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would have the effect of excluding from the requirement to go out to competition any authority which had made "satisfactory" arrangements for the disposal of its waste—"satisfactory" being defined with reference to the need to maintain an efficient waste disposal service. That would prevent the introduction of competition unless the Secretary of State considered that authorities had failed to make satisfactory arrangements in their area.
We find it very hard to understand how this amendment would work in practice. It appears that the Secretary of State would be expected to examine all of the existing waste disposal arrangements to see if they were satisfactory. If he were not satisfied he would then order that competition be introduced.
The anxiety behind these amendments seems to be that existing arrangements should be protected from competition. We do not accept that view. If current arrangements are good enough they have nothing to fear from competitive tendering. To put it plainly, the best bid will win.
If noble Lords are concerned that existing arrangements offer the best environmental option but could be beaten on cost alone, I can reassure them.

313
There is an important difference between the provisions of this Bill and those of the 1988 Local Government Act which introduced competition for some other local authority services. The Bill places an explicit duty on waste disposal authorities to have regard to environmental factors when considering tender bids. Environmental factors include the need to minimise pollution and to maximise recycling. There can therefore be no question of the Government forcing authorities to accept the lowest cost tender where there are good environmental reasons for accepting a higher one.
For those reasons I do not accept that there is any need to shelter existing arrangements from competition. The simplest way to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made will be for authorities to subject their waste disposal activities to competitive tendering. I therefore cannot accept either of these two amendments. I urge noble Lords to reject them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether I am supposed to thank the noble Earl for that reply. I do not believe that it was intended to be helpful. It was intended to impose a rigid procedure for compulsory competitive tendering even when the Secretary of State has an opportunity to be satisfied that the existing arrangements are satisfactory.
I readily concede that the Secretary of State could not examine every single waste disposal operation and make an individual judgment about it. But he could establish principles, as Secretaries of State have from time immemorial. They have established criteria by which it would be possible to judge whether or not an operation is satisfactory.
The amendment does not take away the power of the Secretary of State to impose a competitive tendering procedure. It simply makes it a reserve power. It avoids the necessity for quite unnecessary disruption where a system is operating satisfactorily at the moment. I believe that this is a classic example of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Government are determined to break things in order to attempt to fix them again in accordance with dogmatic principles.
I am very sad to have the Minister's reply in those terms. However I do not suppose that there is anything that we can do now to persuade either him or the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 33, line 14, at end insert ("and these shall be carried out so as to ensure the adoption of the best practicable means of waste treatment and disposal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in order to save time I shall speak to the other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 61; namely, Amendments Nos. 72, 96, 97, 116–119, 123 and 124. They relate to the developments in the increasingly important area of waste disposal and management which cannot be emphasised too often.
As I have already told the House, Professor Isaac, who is associated with Newcastle University and the
314
large Scottish firm of Motherwell Bridge Holdings which has a large waste disposal department, has prepared my notes in relation to all these amendments. He was summoned to see the Minister of State during the Recess and had the presence of mind to send a copy of the notes to him. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is nodding her head. As the Minister has that crib, perhaps I may read the notes.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 72 contain the same words. They draw attention to the fact that our necessary long-term improvements in waste disposal practice cannot be emphasised too often. Although it looks like gilding the lily it is worth putting that on the record.
There are two amendments to Clause 49. Subsection (3) sets out many integers which should be included in the plans of a regulation authority as regards waste disposal. Amendment No. 96 draws attention to the fact that in drawing up a waste disposal plan not only are immediate cost factors to be considered but so must long-term damages which might arise from the way in which the waste is disposed. Amendment No. 97 relates to subsection (4). It is intended to draw attention to the fact that several waste treatment methods are now readily available for reducing the volume of the waste finally to be deposited on the land.
Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 are directed to the operations adumbrated under Clauses 54 and 55. Their object is to draw attention to an operation known as "composting". That method of dealing with waste disposal is common in the United States and in several EC countries. It is a means of extracting from the waste material, a large percentage of which is usually organic, the solid pieces of glass, plastic and metal in order that the remaining organic material can be treated and used for agricultural purposes. I am advised by Professor Isaac that the method of composting has the additional advantage of replacing the present use of peat as a source of humous for horticulture. For obvious reasons the use of peat is under considerable attack by environmentalists.
Amendment No. 118 and 119 relate to Clause 60 which deals with closed landfills. One expects landfills to be in the land but I understand that particularly in America some wastes are put on the land in order to alter its contour. It would be prudent to include these amendments in case that practice develops in this country and more waste is put on the land instead of in the land. I understand from Professor Isaac that the practice is not prevalent in this country but it is carried out in several Western European countries. As we try to conform with EC practices perhaps the Government will agree with the amendments.
Amendment No. 123 relates to Clause 66 which deals with the annual reports that should be issued. I need not go into the details of who issues them or how they are issued. The amendment is intended to draw attention to the developments made in this field in EC countries. I suggest that in drawing up annual reports the regulation authorities should make mention of comparisons of waste treatment and disposal practices in their areas and those of other EC countries. The

315
Government may consider that it is asking too much of a waste regulation authority to carry out such researches. However, according to my advice it may encourage waste inspectors to look closely at developments in EC countries.
Amendment No. 124 relates to training. It introduces into Clause 67 the provision that:
"The Secretary of State may by regulation specify the education, training and practical experience required for `suitable qualifications' under subsections (2) and (3) above".
At this stage I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for providing me so promptly with a copy of the press release issued today by her department. The training of people dealing with waste disposal is of great importance. Professor Isaac was summoned to see Mr. Trippier, the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside. He was asked to prepare notes and plans of an educational kind which will help the Minister in regard to the regulations. Therefore, perhaps the amendment can be accepted even though not in its present form. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic and I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, with great interest. He explained that Amendments Nos. 61 and 72 seek to import into the Bill the phrase "the best practicable means". Is that phrase intended to be synonymous with BATNEEC; that is the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost? It seems to me that what may be practicable may at the same time be quite unreasonable from the point of view of expense. Perhaps the noble Lord will clarify what his amendments are intended to convey in that respect.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in this matter because at the time that he was introducing his point a distinguished member of the Opposition Bench was telling me something that I had omitted. Therefore,I am extremely sorry to say that I did not gather the point of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope that the House will bear with me because I believe that this is an important point which may cause some anxiety. Amendments Nos. 61 and 72 use the phrase "the best practicable means" of waste treatment and disposal. In the past there have been arguments about BPEO (best practicable environmental option) as opposed to BTEO (best technical environmental option). On the whole that has given way to a concept which has been referred to at length throughout the Bill; namely, BATNEEC (best available technique not entailing excessive cost). When the noble Lord uses the phrase "best practicable means", is that synonymous with BATNEEC? If so, why does he not say that? If it does not mean that, what does it mean?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in repeating his question. I agree with what the noble Lord says but I believe that the word "practicable" covers a number of integers and would cover the question of cost. Therefore, it will be in the discretion of the authority,
316
having regard to the cost, to decide whether it is "practicable" in the circumstances of that particular case.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for giving very clear descriptions of the arguments for each of his amendments despite the fact that in the department we have had the advantage of being aware of Professor Isaac's arguments.
Amendments Nos. 61 and 72 seek to introduce the concept of best practicable means to waste management. The concept of best practicable means is of course integral to Part III of the Bill. It has a specific legal meaning built up over many years. This meaning does not sit easily with Part II of the Bill. The foundations of Parts I and III on the one hand and Part II on the other are very different and spring from different histories. At the risk of over-simplification the differences can be summed up in the following way; Parts I and III rely upon the concept of best practicable means to minimize pollution, Part II relies upon licences with specific conditions aimed at preventing pollution. This difference of approach reflects the different types of pollution being tackled by Parts I and III and Part II and the histories of the separate control regimes. For these reasons I am not able to accept these amendments to Part II of the Bill.
Amendment No. 96 is intended to ensure that long-term environmental damage is considered in waste disposal plans. This is an intention that I sympathize with, but I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary. The consideration of long-term environmental damage should of course be a prime concern of regulation authorities. The Government expect that as a matter of course consideration of long-term environmental damage would figure in waste disposal plans. Indeed Clause 49(1) (a) refers to arrangements designed to minimise or prevent pollution of the environment. This of course includes short-term, mid-term and long-term environmental damage. I trust that the noble Lord will accept that his concern will be covered.
Amendment No. 97 seeks to add a requirement that disposal plans include information about treatment methods for the reduction of waste. Once again I commend the noble Lord's intention but I can assure him that Clause 49 (3) (d) already deals with such treatment methods. Indeed Clause 49 (3) (d) requires that plans include details of:
"…the methods and the respective priorities for the methods by which in the opinion of the authority controlled waste in its area should be disposed of or treated during that period".
This covers all methods of treatment or disposal. I trust therefore that the noble Lord will be satisfied that his intention has been met and will not press his amendment.
Amendments Nos 116 and 117, which are intended to draw attention to the method known as "composting" would introduce a direct reference to the process of "composting" waste as a means of recycling it. This is already covered in Clause 29 which provides a definition of waste treatment which

317
includes any process to make it reusable and also a regulation-making power to make specific which processes are to be included in this definition. Indeed composting is already specifically mentioned in the equivalent regulations under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, (Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988, Schedule 5).
Whatever are the merits of it—and the noble Lord made a very good case for it—we believe that it would be invidious to pick out composting from other alternatives. In our view, to list them all would be to go to an unnecessary level of detail.
Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 are drafting amendments which seek to make it clear that local authorities' responsibility extends to closed landfill sites where waste is deposited on the surface as well as in the land. I can assure the noble Lord that these amendments are not necessary. The provisions of Clause 60 apply equally to landfill, surface deposit or landraising sites without the need to add the words "and on". In other words, the kind of case which the noble Lord outlined is already covered by the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 123 would add that each regulation authority's annual report should include a comparison of the disposal methods in its area with those in the rest of the European Community. The noble Lord anticipated what my argument would be. I cannot agree that it would be a good use of local authority resources to investigate European disposal methods in this way. I accept that there is merit in keeping abreast of developments elsewhere and learning from good practice although I would strongly resist any suggestion that there may be in the amendment that we in the UK lag behind the best developments in the world.
There are many different ways of treating and disposing of waste in Europe. These differences are often little to do with differences in standards, but more to do with differences in geology and history. For instance, it is not possible to landfill some wastes in the Netherlands due to a high water table, which it would be perfectly safe to landfill in most other countries. It would therefore not necessarily be fruitful to give a straight forward comparison of methods, and a comparison of methods alone would say nothing about the standards to which those methods were operated. Such a comparison might indeed be very misleading without a thorough analysis of the reasons for any differences and the standards of operation. Without such an analysis many general readers of an annual report might be misled by apparent discrepancies between the methods used for disposal in their area and those of some other part of the Community.
The proposal would also be extraordinarily resource intensive. I think it would not be an exaggeration to say that so far the European Commission has not produced a comprehensive list of all the disposal methods used in all member states, let alone the standards to which they are operating. Indeed the Commission has only recently proposed
318
that it should bring together waste disposal plans in the Community to draw up an overview on hazardous waste disposal facilities under the revised draft of the Toxic and Dangerous Waste Directive. I believe that any research organisation would confirm that it is extremely difficult and costly to collect such information direct from the member states. I believe that it is unreasonable to expect local authorities to undertake or commission the research needed for this task. Furthermore, I believe that the end result would not provide the illumination that the noble Lord seeks through his amendment. I am sure that we wish to see the authorities devoting their scarce resources to the immediately important task of improving the regulation. I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Finally, Amendment No. 124 raises the serious subject of training and qualifications for inspectors. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his appreciation of the memorandum which he received from us.
I can assure noble Lords that the Government subscribe firmly to the view that industry is entitled to expect properly trained, qualified and experienced inspectors, especially now that we shall be requiring exactly that of waste management licence holders. Indeed, it is precisely because of our refusal to compromise on the calibre of staff that HMIP have been finding it difficult to appoint as many inspectors as they would wish. As part of their auditing role HMIP will also scrutinise the calibre of Waste Regulation Authority staff, and guidance will be issued to authorities on the type as well as the number of inspectors they should be using on regulatory duties. That advice will carry statutory force. In that way we shall achieve the objectives of the amendment but by a rather different route.
The noble Lord will probably not be entirely happy with everything I said, but I hope I have been able to allay his misgivings in some respects.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear, compact and courteous approach to the 10 amendments I assembled together. I have nothing further to say this evening. I shall arrange for Professor Isaac to read the reply of the Minister and shall obtain his opinion on that reply. I again thank the Minister for the way in which he considered in detail all the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 61.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61A not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 33, line 27, leave out first ("to") and insert ("or conducive to, or calculated to facilitate,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 62 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 67. Amendment No. 62 is a technical drafting amendment to bring the wording of the Bill into line with other statutes where a flexible interpretation of the powers of companies under local authority control is needed. This will help make LAWDCs competitive by clarifying that they are able

319
to carry out activities not directly connected with waste—for example, consultancies—provided that they are intended to secure the principal waste disposal objects of the company.
Amendment No. 63 is another drafting amendment. That makes clear that all disposal authorities' undertakings are covered by Clause 31; including transfer stations.
Amendment No. 64 is a minor amendment giving the Secretary of State greater flexibility when using his powers to direct authorities to set up a LAWDC. The amendment allows him to vary or revoke any directions he may have made and to issue new directions where appropriate. This flexibility is essential for cases where circumstances change after a direction has been issued. It will allow for sensible changes to be made to directions reflecting the new circumstances.
Amendment No. 65, in my name, is a rather complex looking beast which has two simple and I hope widely appreciated effects. The first effect is to treat shares in LAWDCs as fully paid up under the Companies Act 1985. If shares were not treated in this way authorities could subsequently be liable to pay the nominal value of the shares. The second effect will allow LAWDCs to claim tax allowances for their plant and equipment, just like any other waste disposal company. I trust noble Lords will agree that both of these effects serve to put LAWDCs on a level footing with the private sector waste disposal companies they will be competing with.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 deal with paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 which prevents authorities from restricting the sale of securities in their LAWDCs. They widen the scope of that paragraph to include any other disposal companies set up by local authorities. This would apply where an authority had set up a disposal company before being directed to form a LAWDC. These provisions do not force authorities to sell their securities; they merely prevent them from obstructing the sale of those securities; for example, by restricting the company's memorandum and articles of association. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that most of the amendments are drafting or tidying amendments. However, I am a little more concerned about Amendment No. 64. The Secretary of State already has fairly wide powers in Schedule 4 to issue, vary, revoke or substitute a direction. Amendment No. 64 proposes that he may vary or revoke a direction at any time before the vesting date, whether before or after the company has been formed.
I understood that the intention of Amendment No. 64 was to encourage LAWDCs to operate in a commercial role. After they are formed, presumably have started work on their business plan and been dealing with their finances as well as making operational decisions, for the Secretary of State then to be able to vary, revoke, substitute or issue new directions is not what one expects from a system
320
suitable for a competitive enterprise. I am puzzled why the power should be so wide, and why it should be continued after the company has been formed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may reply. I hope that the noble Lord will take on trust that there is nothing sinister in the power being given to the Secretary of State. The example I can give—whether satisfactory or not—is that where a LAWDC is formed and another is formed close by and they are not viable in the commercial sense, it allows the Secretary of State, with agreement with the LAWDCs, to vary the direction so that they may re-form as one LAWDC. Therefore the Secretary of State would have the power to vary or revoke the original direction.
On the point regarding revocation or variation before or after companies are formed, I am advised that the crucial date is when the company is vested and begins trading. It will be formed in shell form many months before. The amendment concerns the use of a variation power to ensure that when the LAWDC is formed it is a viable and commercial operation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I can say that I am grateful to her for that explanation. However phrases are being used which do not appear in the amendment. A perfectly unexceptional example was given of two LAWDCs wishing to combine. The Minister said "with the consent of the LAWDCs". The amendment does not say that. The powers in Amendment No. 64 are much wider. They can be used whether or not the LAWDCs agree. I do not think that the Minister's gloss, using the words, "with the consent of the LAWDCs", is borne out by the terms of the amendment.
Regarding the use of the power before the vesting date and the date of formation of the company, of course there are occasions when a shell company may be formed. However a great number of commercial decisions may take place before the formal vesting date. It is difficult to see how those decisions could be taken coherently if the Secretary of State, without any restriction, has power to vary, revoke or suspend a direction after the company has been formed. I do not find the answer wholly satisfactory.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, perhaps I can come back to that example. Perhaps the phrase, "with the permission of the LAWDC", was not the best one to use. I withdraw that phrase from my explanation. Nevertheless the important point is that when these companies are set up they should be viable and commercial. The amendment allows the Secretary of State to vary his direction in the formulation of the LAWDC.
I withdraw my comment, "with the consent of the LAWDC". I am advised it will not be with their consent. In all cases the LAWDCs will be formed as shell companies first and then the transfer scheme will be submitted. The power of the Secretary of State is to make variations in that direction to ensure that at the end of the day the LAWDC formed is a viable entity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again at Report stage, but the matter is becoming less clear and not more clear. The Minister is now saying that there is an opportunity to change a direction after a scheme has been put forward by a shell company and before vesting date. The amendment would be much more reasonable if it said that. It does not say that. It says that the Secretary of State can revoke, suspend, amend or substitute the direction at any time for any reason, not in response to a transfer scheme put forward.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House—this is an important point—I gave that example as the kind of situation when the Secretary of State may require the power. There may be other examples that we have not considered at this stage. To write that one example on the face of the Bill would not be appropriate. It is important that the Secretary of State achieves the objective that the LAWDCs formed are formed as viable entities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 33, line 44, after ("disposal") insert (", keeping").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63 together with Amendments Nos. 64 to 67 en bloc.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Waste Disposal Authorities and Companies]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 153, line 46, leave out from ("may") to end of line 47 and insert ("exercise his powers to vary or revoke a direction and give a further direction at any time before the vesting date, whether before or after a company has been formed in accordance with the direction or previous direction, as the case may be.").
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, the Question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Content.
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
Amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 156, line 26, at end insert:

Tax and company provisions
—(1) Any shares in a company which are issued as a consequence of the vesting by a transfer scheme of property, rights and liabilities in the company shall—

(a) be issued as fully paid; and

(b) treated for the purposes of the application of the Companies Act 1985 in relation to that company as if they had been paid up by virtue of the payment to the company of their nominal value in cash.

(2) For the purposes of Chapter I of Part II of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 (capital allowance in respect of machinery and plant) property which is vested in a company by virtue of a transfer scheme shall be treated as if—

(a) it had been acquired by the company on the transfer date for the purposes for which it is used by the company on and after that date; and

322

(b) capital expenditure of an amount equal to the price which the property would have fetched if sold in the open market had been incurred on that date by the company on the acquisition of the property for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 160, line 18, leave out from the beginning to ("from").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 160, line 29, after ("authority") insert ("or to which the authority has transferred the relevant part of its undertaking").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Prohibition on unauthorised deposit, treatment or disposal etc. of waste]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 34, line 3, at end insert:
("() produce controlled waste unless the person has been registered as a waste producer by the waste regulation authority within whose area the activity is to be undertaken").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to introduce a requirement that any producer of controlled waste should be registered. The argument behind the amendment is that control over waste should apply from the point it is produced rather than from when it commences transportation.
I should like to give a brief example from my own experience. After I left membership of another place as Member of Parliament for a Leeds constituency a difficulty arose in that area arising from the emission of asbestos into the atmosphere. I do not know whether the manufacture or use of asbestos in factories is covered by other legislation but I do know that there were tragic consequences not only among the workers but among the people who lived in the area outside the factory because of the emission of asbestos dust into the atmosphere. Some people in the area are still suffering grievously from asbestosis because of emissions from that factory. I am not sure whether the factory is still in situ and operating, but certainly the emissions had a devastating effect on some of the families close to it. That is why I believe this aspect needs airing in your Lordships' House.
Just as in the case of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, this Bill concentrates on the regulation of waste when it is deposited, whether in a licensed facility or otherwise. There is some resistance to placing appropriate controls on the transport of waste although these are partially covered by the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, which provides for a system of registered handlers.
This Bill places faith in the principle of the duty of care to ensure that producers of waste act responsibly. The duty of care incorporates, among other things, a requirement that consignments of waste should be properly labelled and destined for a specific disposal facility. The Government have always intimated that the duty will be largely self-regulating, but so far no justification for that view has been advanced.
Many of the criticisms of the existing regulatory system have arisen because the present operation of

323
the abolition Acts has indicated that a stronger police operation is necessary to enforce the controls that are already in place. To suggest that an extension of controls will not require a commensurate extension in the regulation function is, we believe, unreasonable. However, a major problem with the existing regulatory functions is that the agencies charged with this will not always be aware of the producers of the waste. It may be either impossible or extremely time-consuming to establish from where a particular consignment of waste emanated. The amendment argues for a registration system for producers.
Clearly the Government's objection to such a proposal is on the basis of the bureaucracy which would be introduced. However, by way of counter-argument it must be remembered that the duty of care system will be introducing a requirement for consignment notes for every load of waste unless some arrangements are made for regular consignments of identical waste. If a system is introduced which can cope with this volume of information, then to suggest that each producer should be registered is not unreasonable.
From the point of view of the regulators, the knowledge that particular producers are in existence and active will be invaluable in their ability to enforce the measure properly. Not only will it enable them to provide advice and guidance on the appropriate consigning and end-disposal requirements but it will provide prior information about the nature of the waste that is being produced. It will also make it much easier to regulate producers who are not registered simply by reducing the number of points where unregistered production of waste occurs. The assumption is made that, as in the duty of care, individual households will not fall within the requirements to be registered as producers of controlled waste. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 68 is a most ambitious proposal which calls for local registers of waste producers. The Government's position is that such a control is impracticable because it would be unworkable and cumbersome. Even with the exclusion of domestic households, which the amendment does not provide for, the register would be a list of every firm in the country. We already know that we are all waste producers, so what is the point of listing us all? What will local authorities do with a list of every firm, shop and office in the country?
We are all agreed on the need to include waste producers under waste controls. This will already happen, through the duty of care. Every waste producer—and every other person who controls waste—will be bound by the duty. In the normal course of events there should be no need for an authority to monitor waste producers; but if something goes wrong, if the wrong waste turns up at the wrong site or is found fly-tipped, then the authority can descend like a ton of bricks on the producer, the carrier and anyone else connected with the waste. They all know that. Each of them will have every incentive to observe
324
their duty of care so that if there is a breach in the system somewhere along the line they will have a complete answer to any charge.
In that way the duty of care will be largely self-enforcing. It will not require waste regulation authorities to pursue any cases in which they are not already involved. What it adds is a more effective means of pinning down those responsible, including those who were careless as well as those who were directly involved in dumping or wrongly treating the waste. It also offers authorities a source of information in the records of consignments to be kept by all waste holders. That information will be available to authorities when they need it from a waste producer without drowning the producer and the authority in useless paper work when everything is running smoothly.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, raised a number of points. He began by referring to the difficult subject of asbestos. I have to say that the emission of asbestos into the atmosphere from an operational factory is not a subject for this part of the Bill. Asbestos will be a scheduled substance under Part I of the Bill and the controls of the integrated pollution control will apply to all those processes.
In regard to the difficulty of determining where a specific consignment comes from, again the duty of care will require all people in the chain to produce and to keep records of their part in the process and to whom the waste was handed on. This will assist authorities to trace back along the chain.
The final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was that local authorities need to register. If authorities do not know the producers of local waste how can a complete list of producers help them to find out the names of those producers? I hope the noble Lord will pardon this lengthy explanation. I offer it as a positive alternative to the register of producers which we cannot accept.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in a way I am grateful to the Minister for the detailed manner in which she has replied. I do not intend to press this matter to a vote. I believe that the Minister and her advisers wish to proceed on the basis that all employers, and those involved in manufacture, will act responsibly, and in accordance with the spirit of the Bill. History shows that not all manufacturers do that. As a young councillor in Manchester I worked with the rivers' committee of a local authority. From the experience that I gained, I learned that on many occasions rivers were polluted. I do not believe that much accidental polluting takes place. People were breaking the law then and they will continue to do so if they can. The provision as it is now in the Bill will enable them to continue polluting.
Perhaps I am a bit of a cynic. For example, I do not believe that the pollution of the River Rhine which occurred two years ago was an accident. I believe that it was done on the basis that perhaps the persons responsible would get away with it or that the penalties involved would be far less than the economic or business advantages of having carried out the

325
pollution. While I take note of what the Minister has said, I hope that what is proposed works out as it is explained in the Bill.
However, when, after a short period, the Minister looks back, I think she will find from sad experience that that is not the case. The argument that the Minister has made against the amendment is based on bureaucracy. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of local authorities to have a register especially concerning those who are heavily involved in the chemical industry and that kind of activity.
On a previous occasion I made a point of saying that I come from an area in Manchester which, a few years ago, had the unenviable record of the highest infant mortality rate in Great Britain. That situation was related to what was being discharged in the area in the way of chemicals and that kind of material. There was a heavy concentration of manufacturers in that area engaged in those activities. As I say, I hope that the Bill works, but I doubt very much that it will.
I believe that we shall have to return to this matter eventually and deal with it in some other form of legislation. From my own personal experience and knowledge of what has taken place in the past, I do not believe that all the people involved with this Bill and who are engaged in the industrial sector will act within the spirit of the Government's legislation. I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 34, line 21, leave out ("and (b)") and insert (" , (b) or (c)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at first sight this appears to be a pretty anonymous amendment. It is an amendment to Clause 32(3). There is the intention that there should be regulations which should disapply subsection (1) which creates the statutory offence of depositing, treating or disposing of waste when you are not authorised to do so.
Subsection (3) as drafted excludes only paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) is concerned with depositing controlled waste and paragraph (b) concerns the treating, keeping or disposal of controlled waste.
For some reason, which I do not understand, it does not appear to be the intention that there should be regulations to eliminate paragraph (c) which concerns the treating, keeping or disposing of controlled waste which is likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. As I understand it, what is intended by Clause 32(3) is the avoidance of duplication of control. Control should not be under both the waste regulation authority and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Why should that duplication apply only to paragraphs (a) and (b) and not to (c)?
I do not believe that is what is intended. If what has been spotted here is not a misprint, it is a casus omissus. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that and make sure that the Secretary of State has the
326
power to make regulations to exclude firms that come under Clause 32 (1) (c) if they are being controlled and regulated by the pollution inspectorate. Otherwise I believe that we have a muddle, and I am sure that we do not want to have that. I hope very much that my noble friend will feel able to accept this extremely modest but rather necessary amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 68A would add to the Secretary of State's power to disapply the prohibitions of subsection 1(c) so that the general prohibition on acting in a manner likely to cause pollution or harm, could also be disapplied from prescribed cases. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has convinced the Government, at the second time of asking, that this is a sensible provision. We are happy to accept the amendment. When this subject came up before in Committee we were not persuaded that there were any circumstances in which we should exempt anyone from the general prohibition on acting in a manner likely to cause pollution or harm. However we have since concluded that there might be such circumstances. The most obvious example would be waste treatments that were excluded from licensing because they were instead subject to an IPC authorisation. The IPC conditions should cover every aspect of pollution from the process. There should be no need to extend any of the controls of Part II to duplicate what is already well provided for. Those were the points that my noble friend was making.
I can assure any noble Lord who may be concerned by this amendment that the process of disapplying subsection 1(c) will not be automatic for all exemptions granted for licensing. We still envisage that there will be some processes exempt from licensing that will remain bound by this general prohibition of actions likely to cause pollution or harm. On that basis I recommend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Duty of care etc. as respects waste]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 69A:
Page 35, line 35, at end insert:
("and a contravention of this duty shall be an offence whether or not an offence has otherwise been committed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I hope that, in the quest for greater clarity in which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has been so successful, the Government will be equally forthcoming on this matter. The amendment raises a very important issue. The effectiveness of the new duty of care to be imposed on waste producers in raising standards of waste management is, as the Government will acknowledge, a critical component of the Bill.
Yet unfortunately considerable confusion has been imported into the matter as a result of conflicting statements that have been made by government Ministers on this issue. I refer in particular to a Written Answer to which I shall refer in a little more detail later on. It was given by Mr. David Trippier on

327
25th July of this year and appears to be seriously in conflict with a statement made earlier by the Secretary of State and to which I shall also allude.
The Government said much earlier in the course of proceedings on the Bill that the scope of the duty is extremely important. That is absolutely right. It is a matter on which waste producers and others are entitled to depend for clarity. The background to the matter is that when the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 was enacted, Ministers said at that time that they hoped to see a registration scheme for waste carriers implemented by the end of that year. A consultation paper was to be issued in the spring. In July this was deferred to later in the summer. The regulations under the 1989 Act were to be brought into force, so we were told, early in 1991. The important point here is that the duty of care provisions themselves depend on the implementation of the regulations which are to be brought into effect early in 1991.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, here and in another place, the Opposition have been pressing for the Government to clarify the implications of the duty of care. For example, on 21st June my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that the Bill failed:
"to provide for the formulation of policies by local authorities for effective implementation of the duty of care".
He went on to say:
"There is not enough provision for powers of entry for those who would have to enforce the duty of care provisions". —[Official Report, 21/6/90; col.1096.]
That view has been taken up by local authorities through the Association of County Councils. It is a matter of great concern to them and indeed to all of us who want to see this provision given proper effect.
What was it therefore that Mr. Trippier had to say about the matter in a Written Answer on 25th July at cols. 364–65 of the Official Report of another place? I shall not give the whole answer but I shall extract what I think is most relevant. He said:
"The duty of care imposes no additional regulatory duties on local authorities, nor will it require them to visit waste producers routinely".
He went on to say:
"The effect of the duty of care on waste regulation authorities will be to provide for the first time, an effective sanction against producers of waste who collaborate in the commission of existing offences. I do not foresee any need for significant extra resources to deal with this new provision". —[Official Report, Commons, 25/7/90; cols. 364–65.]
So far, so good, in a certain way. The trouble is that it simply did not square with what the Secretary of State himself had to say in another place on 13th February. He said that the duty of care,
"provides that it will be an offence to fail to take all reasonable steps, even if no other offence occurs".
He went on to say that this would help to avert problems before they happened. It is worth underlining what the Secretary of State said:
"It will be an offence to fail to take all reasonable steps, even if no other offence occurs".
According to the junior Minister, Mr. Trippier, waste holders face prosecution only if an offence involving
328
their waste is allegedly committed, whereas the Secretary of State has apparently given a totally different interpretation.
The discrepancy between Ministers here is likely to leave the position very clouded for waste producers, disposers and regulators. That is wholly unsatisfactory when we are dealing with a matter of such extreme importance. We know from the junior Minister that further advice on the steps to be taken by authorities to follow up a suspected breach of the duty is to be issued in the form of a circular when the duty of care provisions are enacted. But we ought to know at this stage what the position is. We are not making a party political point. It is a point of very important clarification and one with which the Minister should deal here and now.
It is not as though Ministers have been unaware of the concerns of manufacturing and waste disposal interests about this point and about the draft duty of care code. These points have been expressed very forcefully. They wanted the Department of the Environment to reconsider the advice it was proposing to give to the effect that waste producers generally need not check the sites used by their disposal contractors. But despite that, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory asserted in an extraordinary Written Answer in another place on 25th July that the overwhelming majority of comments supported the general substance of the duty of care in the draft code of practice.
My advice is that that is inaccurate. I am not accusing the Minister of deliberately misleading us. He is told by his officials what the situation is and he has rehearsed it. But it is in conflict with the advice I have had to the effect that the situation is far from as compelling as the Minister has asserted and serious concerns have been expressed about discrepancies, concerns which have not been taken on board by the department or by the Minister.
This is not simply a question of points of detail or improvement of detailed matters. We call on the Government to clarify the position beyond all doubt and to specify when the duty of care is breached. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope that these additional words will not be necessary. There is little doubt that the creation of this new duty on the part of waste producers to take care is perhaps one of the most fundamental reforms in the Bill. I am sure it will be widely recognised that hitherto a waste producer has had only one concern—to get rid of his waste as cheaply as possible. He has had no concern to see what happened to it after that. If he could find someone who was prepared to undercut the responsible man who treated it properly, who transported it properly and looked after it properly, someone who did not do those things, he might have done so. Many responsible manufacturers would not go down that course but some undoubtedly have. As a result waste has turned up where it should not have been. It has been transported in thoroughly unsuitable vehicles and without proper protection.

329
This is an enormously important reform. At one blow it puts a firm duty on the man who produces the waste. He will be guilty of an offence if he is in breach of it. He will have to ensure that he knows precisely what is going to happen. What does that mean? It means that he must prevent any contravention by any other person of Clause 32. It means that the producer will have a direct interest in ensuring that his waste goes to a suitably licensed facility. If the waste turns up where it should not, the producer will find himself having to show that he acted responsibly, with the risk of a fine if he cannot do so.
I do not read anything into the provision to suggest that someone else has to be proved to have committed some other offence or that he has committed some other offence. If he has not taken proper care and something like that happens, he will be in breach of the duty. That must be so whether or not anyone else has committed an offence. Therefore, I hope I am right in expressing the view that this amendment would add confusion. We do not want in any way to water down and make less clear this enormously important new duty on producers of waste to take care.
I followed very closely the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He sought to draw distinctions between what was said by the Secretary of State and Mr. Trippier. I think that those words were directed at different points. With respect to him, I have to say that I did not see the conflict to which he referred. Of course, he is extremely knowledgeable in such matters and no doubt has followed the issue more closely than I have. However, having looked at the amendment proposed, I hope that it will not be accepted.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. However, one must not blame the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for trying to ensure that we are creating a criminal liability in this connection. In my opinion we do so quite clearly by the application of subsection (6) to the duty described at some length and very fully in subsection (1). Therefore, with respect to the noble Lord, I say to him that Amendment No. 69A is not necessary. Moreover, even if it were, it would be most unusual to include therein the words:
"whether or not an offence has otherwise been committed".
If those words were necessary here, they would be necessary whenever an offence is described. However, we do not usually go to that length.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this amendment would specify that it is an offence to contravene the duty of care,
"whether or not an offence has otherwise been committed".
We can confirm that this is indeed an offence. A person will be guilty of an offence under Clause 33 if he has not fulfilled his own duty, irrespective of whether the waste was dealt with legally or illegally. For example, if a producer transfers his waste to an unregistered carrier who then fortuitously happens to take it to a properly licensed facility, the first producer will still be guilty of an offence.
330
The duty of care depends upon the existence of regulations under the 1989 Act. We accept that these regulations have been promised for consultation several times this year. We must say that they have proved rather more difficult to draft than expected, but they are in the final stages of production. We hope to be in a position to issue them for consultation shortly.
I can also confirm that the points made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding are perfectly correct. In view of those arguments, we suggest that the amendment is superfluous and unnecessary. Therefore, we cannot commend it to your Lordships' House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with all the good will in the world I cannot go along with the comments made by noble Lords opposite that great clarity has been introduced into the matter by the statements of Ministers to which I referred. I am afraid that all they have managed to do is to cast a blinding ray of darkness upon this important issue.
I am not at all satisfied that the situation has been clarified by the response just given by the Minister. However, no doubt this will provide lawyers with many opportunities for advising their clients and mulcting them in costs. It will also ensure that the courts will be spending a considerable amount of effort on such matters as a result of this lack of clarity. However, I do not propose to take the opinion of the House on the issue. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 36, line 21, at end insert:
("(5A) The Secretary of State shall, at the earliest practicable date two years after the coming into effect of this Part, invite representations from local authorities and other interested persons regarding the operation of this section, with respect in particular of—

(a) the adequacy and amount of information available to waste regulation authorities to enable them to fulfil their functions; and

(b) the effectiveness of enforcement of the duty of care by local authorities;

and a summary of any such representations shall be laid before Parliament").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The essential point lying behind what is proposed is the question of the need for a review of the effectiveness of the duty of care safeguards. We believe that this is an extremely important matter. As we have just heard again, the Government place considerable faith in the effective-ness of the duty of care provisions. The amendment seeks to provide some certainty that there will be a review, which Parliament would have the opportunity to consider, as to the effectiveness of this extremely critical part of the Bill.
Despite the fact that new powers have been included for the control of deposit of waste, the Government have indicated over and over again that

331
they believe that the duty of care will substantially be self-regulating. I wonder what lies behind that aspiration and why one feels that the Government are justified in expecting self-regulation to provide the answer. I say that because all precedent goes the other way. In my submission, if one looks at the existing controls under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 one can see that the difficulties to which I am now alluding have been made clear. Moreover, some of the principal problems of enforcement of the 1974 Act relate to that very lack of information about production and the nature of the waste about which we have expressed concern during the course of these debates. Therefore, we have real anxieties that similar problems will arise with regard to the duty of care.
We believe that the Bill should clearly express the reference to a review of the workings of the duty of care provisions. It should be assessed on the basis of whether the regulatory authorities have been able to minimise pollution problems arising from the inappropriate handling of waste and why these problems have arisen.
I am sure that the regulatory authorities will be able to help the Government. They will know of any shortcomings which arise in relation to the information, and so on, which is required. They will know this from the information which they have at their disposal and will surely wish to make such information known to the Government.
There may be resource issues which arise in order to improve the information available and therefore the regulatory abilities of the enforcing authorities. We think that all those aspects ought to be part of a report which should be provided to Parliament. Why should the Government respond negatively to something which concerns not only Parliament but also the people outside on whose behalf we ought to be looking at the matter in two to three years' time? I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support for the amendment. Any new regulation or process should surely have some review built into it. The fact that we have previously had problems as regards lack of information, in connection with regulations which dealt with pollution control matters under the 1974 Act, indicates that we have got it wrong in the past and are quite capable of doing so again.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this amendment involves a purely administrative instruction to the Secretary of State to take certain action which he is likely to take in any event as the implementation of the scheme evolves in future years. I think that we are sometimes over-zealous in trying to cover every conceivable administrative possibility. The purpose of legislation is to make laws for the better ordering of society in the hope that people will obey them when the instructions in them are quite specific. But for us to continue on many occasions indicating in the legislation the follow-up action that Ministers should take is, I believe, over-zealous, to put it mildly. It is unnecessary because we can always question Ministers and raise
332
points in Parliament about how legislation is working out. Surely it is better to do that than to clutter up the statute book in the way now proposed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I largely dealt with the matter when answering the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Amendment No. 68, which proposed a register of producers. We are fully alert to the need for information and enforcement of the duty of care. On enforcement, I have explained how, in the Government's view, the duty of care will be largely self-enforcing. It will be the responsibility of every person bound by the duty to police themselves and one another and they will have every incentive to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked why the scheme is self-regulating. There are two reasons for that. The first is practicability. There are too many waste producers and holders to rely solely on enforcement by authorities which should have to step in only when something has clearly gone wrong with the normal chain of legal waste management. The second reason is that we believe that self-regulation will work. Each person will be checking not just what he himself does but also what others do. They will all have to ensure that the person to whom they give waste is bona fide and legal.
The noble Lord also expressed anxiety about the duty of care being self-regulatory. A producer will know for the first time that, if he does not take reasonable steps, he will be prosecuted. That has never been the case before. Most of industry will be worried about that provision whereas it might not even have considered waste disposal to be important before. A criminal offence will concentrate the mind. We shall give as much publicity as possible to those new duties. I am sure that industry will respond.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton, who raised the issue of overlaying bureaucracy to no useful end. On information, the duty of care and the document to be required by regulations will create an audit trail that producers and authorities will be able to follow.
We shall keep both subjects in mind, not merely two years after the commencement, but constantly, and I am sure that we shall receive representations. If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, continues to be a Member of the House I am certain that he and others will question Ministers in Parliament on all these subjects.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am interested in that proposal for constitutional reform from the Government Front Bench. Is it now intended that the term of office of Members of the House shall not be for life?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not in my mind but I understand it is in the minds of other noble Lords. So long as there are noble Lords in the House there will always be the democratic right to question Ministers about policies and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. For the first time all parts of the system of waste control and management will be more

333
exposed than they have ever been. That is healthy. The public and Parliament will know what is going on through all the democratic means at their disposal. I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister has touching faith in self-regulation, which is compounded by experience. Be that as it may, and let us assume that in this instance her faith appears to be justified, does she say that no qualifications are likely? She took up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Renton—
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me, it was the custom in another place to refer to Queen's Counsel as being learned, but here in your Lordships' House one is not considered to be learned if one is merely a Queen's Counsel.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to be put right about that point, but I grew into a sort of habit about the noble Lord. Unfortunately, I continue to consider him as learned. If I am wrong about that, I apologise.
There is a touching faith too in the capacity of Members of another place and in the House to be able effectively to probe the Government about matters of considerable detail such as this is in Question Time and otherwise. What we need, and what we are asking for, is some regularity and cohesion about this matter. Information would be laid before the House, the public would know about it and the matter could be much more effectively and decisively questioned.
I am disappointed that the Minister should be so negative about what is designed to help the Government, particularly with their faith in self-regulation. So far as conditionality of membership of the House is concerned, I was beginning to be a little worried about my state of health or how the Minister viewed it from those Benches, but I had an early shave this morning and that may account for it. I share her optimism as to the election of another government. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 36, line 30, after ("issue") insert ("on behalf of the chief inspector").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the amendment is to ascertain from the Government why HMIP will not be involved in the statutory guidance; that is to say, the code on waste management. I should have thought that the audit role of HMIP would be of considerable importance in ensuring that high standards are aimed for and achieved, and that it would alert the Government to any shortcomings. There is a need to ensure that the regulatory authorities are supplied with adequate and current information about standards and so on.
The Bill provides for the issuing of statutory advice. The mechanism whereby that is to be arranged needs to be clarified. Again, that is a matter where HMIP's role could be usefully used on behalf of the Government and the people. I hope that the Minister
334
will be a little more forthcoming. I have not enjoyed anything like the same success as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who has only to get up and he convinces the Government right away. That is his power of advocacy, from which I shall learn. I hope to have more success with the next government.
The other major cause of anxiety here is the technical policy element, which is crucial to the effective implementation of Part II. What seems likely is that the existing waste management papers will, with suitable upgrading and revision, be issued as statutory guidance on best practice for operators and regulators. In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, asserted:
"It is likely that HMIP will no longer produce waste management papers. That requirement is likely to be transferred to the Waste Management Technical Policy Group".—[Official Report, 21/6/90; col. 1121.]
However, in the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who has departed to another department, said:
"HMIP will be issuing detailed guidance on how authorities should discharge their regulatory role; matters such as frequency of site inspections and the number and qualifications of inspectors to be employed".—[Official Report, 21/6/90; col. 1125.]
On the face of it there seems to be some confusion about what is proposed for HMIP. I hope that the Government will be able to clarify the position here and now. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I hope that the amendment is not accepted. I hope that any Secretary of State acts on behalf of the Government and no one else. We are heading for trouble if we have the Secretary of State acting on behalf of a chief inspector.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree. I find it a strange proposition. After all, the chief inspector is appointed by the Secretary of State. As I understand it, he will be an official of the department. It is unheard of for Ministers who are given power or responsibility for issuing codes of practice to do so other than on their own behalf and on their own responsibility. They do not need to have it stated in a statute that it is being issued on behalf of an official of their department. I have never heard of such a thing.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 70A would have the code of practice on the duty of care issued on behalf of the chief inspector of HMIP. We do not believe that this would be a proper part of the job of the chief inspector of HMIP. We believe that this amendment may be based on misunderstandings both of the role of the HMIP and the nature of the code of practice.
The role of HMIP on waste management in Part II of the Bill is much more withdrawn than its role in Part I. Under Part II it is waste regulation authorities who are the authorities out in the field framing and applying statutory controls. The role of HMIP is to oversee the work of the waste regulation authorities. Essentially it has no enforcement role of its own on licensing and none on the duty of care.

335
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the question of waste management papers and the involvement or otherwise of HMIP. I can tell him that not all existing waste management papers will become statutory guidance. The important papers such as Paper 4 on licensing will become statutory guidance. It may be that the waste technical policy unit will provide future advice, but that unit will be staffed by equally experienced technical officers so there is no cause for concern at this transfer.
We must also be clear about the purpose and nature of this code of practice. The practical guidance in it is not primarily technical. The prime purpose is to provide guidance for the benefit both of waste holders and of the courts as to what steps are reasonable to discharge the legal duty. It is therefore as much a legal and administrative document as a technical one. Lawyers and administrators in the department need to contribute to the code as much as HMIP, which offers technical and professional advice.
I can assure the noble Lord that HMIP has been and will continue to be closely involved in the preparation of the code. But the code is a product of the Department of the Environment as a whole and it is the Government's view, as well as that of my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lord Renton, that it should be statutorily issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have never found Conservative Members of Parliament altogether convincing before, so this sets a precedent for me. I find that the arguments that have been adduced by the noble Lords opposite totally convincing. They have undermined whatever I have said. This is a precedent which is not likely to be repeated, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 36, line 32, at end insert ("including guidance on the operation of relevant regulations under any other enactment concerning health and safety matters").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. It is designed to prompt the Government to state their current position on a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, in a previous debate, agreed to consider—that is, whether the code relating to the duty of care should refer to the health and safety regulations. The matter was apparently left open and I therefore hope that on this occasion the Minister replying for the Government will be able to clarify the situation.
Perhaps I ought to add a word on the circumstances in which the issue arose. The question was whether the duty of care and the related code impinged on the operation of emergency plans associated with the storage, treatment or disposal of waste. It was acknowledged that if waste is of such a nature that its storage presents a major hazard, it will be covered by health and safety legislation. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, may be surprised and happy to know that on this occasion I believe him to be on a somewhat better point. However, I do not think that the exact way he has proposed to do this is appropriate. If the amendment had read:
"including guidance on the operation of relevant regulations under any other enactment",
and had stopped there, it could have been helpful. Very often one piece of legislation impinges upon another when codes of practice are being compiled. To have a cross-reference could be useful. However, to say,
"any other enactment concerning health and safety matters",
is surely opening the door wide. There is a vast range of legislation dealing with health and safety. The noble Lord may well feel that he has limited and qualified those last few words by the word "relevant". However, I rather fear that it is dangerous to invite attention to any other enactment concerning health and safety matters. Therefore I am not inclined to support the noble Lord on the amendment as it stands. However, had the last words been deleted then I should have had some difficulty in opposing it.
Lord Addington: My Lords, not surprisingly, since my name is on it, I support the aims of the amendment. Also, we need cross-referencing, we constantly find pieces of legislation bumping into each other so surely something of this nature is required. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, would agree with that but does not like the words. I shall be interested to hear what the Government say in the matter and whether they will provide some other form of guidance about the cross-referencing of regulations in various Acts.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can be brief on this amendment and say that we are happy to give an assurance that the code will draw attention to the existence of the codes of practice under the health and safety legislation, among a number of cross-references to other statutory requirements which are not the subject of the code. However, it would be quite wrong to duplicate provisions of other legislation in the statutory code of practice. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel on the basis of this explanation that he need not press his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if it were possible at this stage to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should do so. I cannot. I am impressed by what he said and perhaps the most appropriate course for me to take now is to consider the possibility of coming back to the issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Waste management licences: general]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 37, line 37, after first ("authority") insert ("(and providing it has previously consulted that authority on the matter)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, like so many others past and future, is concerned with consultation with the local authority—in this case about appeal decisions. This is not something plucked out of the air. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, from the Government Front Bench, said in response to an earlier amendment:
"It is not necessary to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the authority but he will in all cases"—
I emphasise that—
"have done so before reaching a decision to direct, and indeed the normal principles of administrative law require that that should happen". [Official Report 21/6/90; col. 1120.
That is all very well as far as it goes. In the absence of any other evidence I should have accepted that assurance and should not have pursued the matter now. However, the trouble is that, whatever the normal principles of administrative law may be, that is not what has happened. The metropolitan waste disposal authorities were subject to review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. They were informed that their operation was broadly acceptable. But then the Government proposed a reorganisation of their functions by the creation of the local authority waste disposal companies.
There was no dispute about any specific licence arrangements. However, there was no consultation and the approval of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution was not considered good enough. It was quite clear that there was not adequate consultation and contact between HMIP and the waste disposal authorities. Even if that is the normal principle of administrative law and even if we have an assurance from the Front Bench that the Secretary of State will in all cases consult with the authorities, that is not what happens. For that reason we have considered it necessary to table this amendment to ensure that the assurances are written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not accept this amendment, although I appreciate the motive behind it. The noble Lord is really saying that we have to write something into the Bill to say that what is going to be done has got to be well done. Surely we always intend that whenever we give a power or require something to be done in the public interest. It must be well done. That is all that the amendment states. It would constitute a sheer waste of words.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 73 would require the Secretary of State to consult an authority before directing it as to what conditions to attach, or not to attach, to a licence. We cannot accept an amendment that would so fetter the Secretary of State's powers to act urgently if required. The Opposition has several times expressed the view that the Secretary of State should be statutorily bound to consult before he discharges various functions. In this case the function in question is directing an authority what conditions to put on a particular waste
338
management licence. The Government are in practice perfectly happy to consult wherever it is practicable to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, quoted from Hansard some of my comments made in Committee. He must be correct therefore in stating that I said that in all cases the Government would consult. In that case I must apologise to the noble Lord and to the House for having misled them on that occasion. I believe it is true that the Government would consult in the majority of cases and would be required to do so by normal administrative law. However, there are occasions when emergency action would require action without consultation.
It would be difficult for a case to reach the extreme stage of dictating licence conditions to an authority without there having been consultations. But we have to legislate in a way which caters for emergencies. Urgent cases coming to the attention of the Secretary of State where an authority had failed to put essential conditions on a licence might require immediate action. A requirement to consult in such cases would be inappropriate and unhelpful. It might then be necessary to intervene, perhaps to prevent pollution, by ensuring that the correct conditions were imposed on the licence as soon as possible. In such circumstances a delay for statutory consultation would not be reasonable. I must therefore ask your Lordships not to bind the Secretary of State's hands by such an amendment but to accept my assurance that in general there will be consultations before a direction.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that I tabled this amendment but not for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because the amendment does not seek to do what he says. We are not insisting that something should be well done. We are merely saying that there should be consultation. I am sorry that I tabled the amendment because we have moved backwards. An assurance given by the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench in Committee has now been withdrawn with apologies to the House. I took the Government at their word. I thought they meant that the normal principles of administrative law would require consultation with authorities in all cases. I am still not sure that that is not the case. I should have thought that a local authority would have a good case for judicial review if it found that a direction of this kind had been taken without consultation. Local authorities themselves have often had their decisions overruled on the grounds not just that consultation had not taken place but that it was inadequate.
I much prefer the reply given on 21st June to the reply given today. I am sorry that that reply has been qualified and weakened now. The situation is now unsatisfactory and means that the normal principles of administrative law which were adumbrated by the Government as principles only a few months ago are now to be changed. It is interesting that normal principles of administrative law can be changed simply by the way a phrase is expressed from the Government.

339
Front Bench in the House of Lords. I am not at all happy. I do not think that the Minister addressed the issue that I raised about metropolitan waste authorities. There was no defence of the decision to go against the recommendations of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. I do not see any reason why this amendment should not be accepted by the Government as it is so much in accordance with what was said previously.
However, we must consider framing an amendment which responds to the Government's position as it now stands rather than as we expected it to stand after the Committee stage. I may well come back on Third Reading with a more drastic measure rather than a more conciliatory measure, as is normally the case. If the Government move backwards, I shall have to pursue them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Grant of licences]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 38, line 33, after ("health") insert:
('(bb) contravention of the requirements of subsection (3A) below, or such other requirement as the Secretary of State may substitute by regulations made under that subsection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 74, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 75. We are considering here the requirements which have to be met for the Secretary of State 10 issue a waste disposal licence. The Bill sets out various forms of damage which would result in the rejection of a licence application. They are pollution of the environment, harm to human health or detriment to local amenities. There is nothing wrong with that and I have no objection to any of those criteria. However, there is another equally important way of considering the matter of waste disposal. I say that without detriment to what I have just said. There should be an order of priorities for the way in which waste is disposed of.
An order of priority has been set out by the European Commission in its document entitled A Waste Management Strategy for Europe. That order of priority is also set out in Amendment No. 75. The first priority as set out in paragraph (a) of the amendment is a,
"reduction of waste by process or technology improvement".
Where this first priority is impracticable, the second priority as stated in paragraph (b) applies. It is,
"the reutilisation of, or resource recovery from, or recycling of the waste".
The third priority is stated in paragraph (c) of the amendment. It states:
"(in any case in which the authority considers the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) above to be impracticable) the elimination of the waste by physical or chemical means".
Where paragraphs (a) to (c) are impracticable, the lowest priority as set out in paragraph (d) applies. It is the,
"disposal of the waste to landfill, or such other method of disposal as the authority considers appropriate".
340
I do not believe that the Government will disagree with those orders of priority. They are now pretty well established as the basis on which we think about reducing waste, recycling and different methods of elimination of waste before we are forced into disposal of the irreducible minimum of waste. That is now common ground. If one looks at the Government White Paper issued two weeks ago one finds many references to those principles.
It would be a pity if, having recognised those principles, we failed to give effect to them in the waste disposal licences which will come into effect when the Bill becomes law. Otherwise all the fine words in the White Paper and in speeches by Ministers—I have not heard the speech the Secretary of State for the Environment is due to make at the Conservative Party conference today but I am sure that it will be full of fine words—
A noble Lord: Very good!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said full of fine words, not very good. There is a great difference between fine words with no action and indications of action.
If the Government accept the amendment there is a possibility that the Secretary of State's speech at least in that respect will be good because there is an opportunity for the Government to do what the White Paper does not do; namely, to take an outstanding opportunity to put into practice the fine words that they preach. If the Minister in this House is prepared to take the Secretary of State's fine words as being a serious indication of the Government's intention to act I feel sure that she will wish to support and approve of the amendments. I hope that the House will see fit to adopt them. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I must confess that when I first read the amendment on the Marshalled List I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was on to something. However, on closer inspection I have seen a number of irremovable flaws.
The clause is concerned with the giving of licences to site operators. In the vast majority of cases a waste disposal site will cater for a very wide range of wastes from a wide range of different sources. The flaw in the amendment is that the authority which is to issue the licence would be required to inspect every possible waste producer whose waste was to turn up on the site in order to be able to ask itself the questions which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Amendment No. 75. I regard that as totally impractical.
If it were a question of one producer wanting to use a site for the waste from one operation it might be feasible to ask whether the amount of waste could be reduced by process or technology improvement or whether it could be re-utilised or recycled. However, in the case of a normal site for which a licence would be required and to which a large number of firms are likely to take their waste it is impractical.
Having said that, what is the process? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a point. If one is to have a

341
policy for the minimisation and recycling of waste, as the Government certainly have—we all support it— there must be measures to achieve that. Those measures are to be found in a different part of the Bill. That is what integrated pollution control is all about. It is set out in paragraph 14.3 and following paragraphs of the White Paper under the heading "Waste Minimisation". It is stated:
"The Government's first priority is to reduce waste at source to a minimum. It intends to achieve this by imposing tough standards on industry through Integrated Pollution Control and by promoting clean technologies".
The subsequent paragraphs spell out how that is to be done.
That is not done through the process of issuing licences to site operators. It is done through integrated pollution control and all the steps in Part I of the Bill that we have dealt with in the past. Therefore to pile Pelion upon Ossa and require the authority which is to issue a site licence to go through the process again before a site licence is issued is impractical and unnecessary. I understand the noble Lord's motives for wanting to do so but I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I for one regard it as wholly impractical.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 would require an authority to impose in a licence particular conditions for the purpose of minimising environmental pollution, while Amendment No. 74 would allow refusal of a licence application where the requirements in Amendment No. 75 are to be breached.
We here enter the debate on the priorities to be adopted in dealing with waste. Let me say at once that we accept the greater part, though not quite all, of the policy underlying the amendments. However, we have two main objections to the amendments. First, we do not believe that we should put this detailed policy on the statute book in such prescriptive detail. Secondly, in our view the amendments are directed at the wrong target—at waste disposers rather than waste producers.
The policy underlying the amendment is that there should be a hierarchy of waste management priorities. In the Government's view the priorities for waste should be as follows: first, minimise; secondly, recycle; and only as a third choice, dispose. That view was set out in the White Paper and we therefore agree up to that point with the principle behind the noble Lord's amendment. The only qualification I would add is that we cannot agree that incineration rather than landfill is automatically the best answer for waste disposal in all cases where waste can be neither minimised nor recycled. In many cases there is little environmental benefit to be gained from prior incineration. In our view a blanket prescription that landfill should always be a last resort does not accord with environmental reality.
That is the underlying policy. However, whatever we may argue about the details of the hierarchy the Government's view is that it should not be set in concrete by primary legislation at this level of detail. It is more appropriate to advice and, if necessary,
342
direction from the department to local waste regulation authorities. Waste producers and waste disposers should be allowed a choice of options where this is consistent with good environmental practice. Waste regulation authorities need to maintain enough flexibility to take account of individual cases. If there is any policy so universal in its application that we need to impose it on all, then powers exist for the Secretary of State to direct what authorities may permit or require of waste managers; but that is not, in our view, appropriate to the face of the Bill.
My other main objection was identified by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding; namely, that the amendments are directed at the wrong person. The holder of a waste management licence is, by definition, dealing with a material that has already been discarded by someone; it is already waste. If we wish to prevent waste arising we must address the provisions to the person who produced it in the first place. That is what Part I of the Bill sets out to do through integrated pollution control. It would be wrong to refuse a licence to a disposer of waste on the grounds that someone else had produced it or failed to recycle it.
In a nutshell, I can confirm the Government's adherence to a hierarchy of priorities for dealing with waste not very different from those of the noble Lord, but in our view the amendments are not the right way to promote such a policy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I had been searching for a test case of the conflict between the fine words of the White Paper, the public presentation of so-called green policy by the Government and the reality of what the Government propose to do about it, I could not have chosen a better example than this one.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has been very helpful. He has read out from the White Paper —which I do not have before me today, because I gave away my copy and it is now out of print—the section in which the Government set out their adherence to the principles in my Amendment No. 75. The noble Lord read them out from the wrong place, because he was talking about integrated pollution control and was therefore dealing largely with other forms of emissions into the air, rather than the waste with which this part of the Bill is concerned. Nevertheless, it is there in the White Paper.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I did not weary the House by reading out subsequent paragraphs. But the paragraphs are perfectly clear. Paragraph 14.5 states:
"examine the potential impact of waste discharges on all three media, (air, water and land)".
It is not only air. The noble Lord is on to a bad point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is even better. Do not do anything; just examine the potential. We have before us an opportunity not to examine the potential but to do something about it. We have a proposal for waste disposal licences for site operators. It is no good the noble Lord on the Front Bench saying that that is the end of the cycle of waste

343
disposal. Waste disposal site operators will very often have opportunities to deal with the reprocessing, the recycling and the reutilisation of the waste that comes to them. There is no technical reason why there should not be vertical integration in the waste disposal cycle. There is no reason why those who have the sites should not also take part in the recycling and recovery process. That is a complete misconception.
We have before us a Bill which provides for the way in which waste will be disposed of and the Government, having said in their White Paper that they will examine the potential for it, are resisting the idea of doing something about it. I could not have chosen a better example of the conflict between what purports to be a policy and what, when you come down to it, is not a policy at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, was good enough to agree that in almost every respect the Government's order of priorities agreed with ours. Indeed, the only conflict he has is achieved by misreading what my amendment says. I did not propose incineration as being always better than disposal to landfill. The amendment refers to,
"the elimination of the waste by physical or chemical means",
which is a much wider concept than simply incineration.
We ought on this occasion to display our support for what the Government claim to be doing rather than for the emptiness of the claims they have put forward in their White Paper, and the House ought to take a view on this matter.
7.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 74.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Airedale, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Ardwick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Barnett, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Birk, B

Nicol, B.

Blease, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Phillips, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Raglan, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glasgow, E.

Ross of Newport, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

[Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Auckland, L.

Arran, E.

Balfour, E.

344

Belstead, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimberley, E.

Borthwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kintore, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lawrence, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Merrivale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Radnor, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Sharples, B.

Effingham, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Elibank, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Walpole, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.11 p.m.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 39, line 20, at end insert:
("(6A) Where any part of the land to be used is land which has been notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (protection for certain areas) and the waste regulation authority proposes to issue a licence, the authority must, before it does so—

(a) refer the proposal to the appropriate nature conservation body; and

(b) consider any representations about the proposal which the body makes to it during the allowed period;

and in this section any reference to the appropriate nature conservation body is a reference to the Nature Conservancy Council for England, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or the Countryside Council for Wales, according as the land is situated in England, Scotland or Wales.
(6B) Until the date appointed under section 124(3) below any reference in subsection (6A) above to the appropriate nature conservation body is a reference to the Nature Conservancy Council.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. At the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81. These amendments give the Nature Conservancy Council statutory status as a consultee on waste licences as promised to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook following the Committee stage. The NCC has a strong interest in applications in waste management licences where the land in question is a site of special scientific interest. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I welcome this amendment. It is highly desirable and I am very pleased that the Government have introduced it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 77 and 78:
Page 39, line 29, after ("Executive") insert (", the appropriate nature conservancy body").
Page 39, line 33, at end insert (", the body").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move these amendments together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36 [Variation of licences]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 81:
Page 40, line 16, leave out ("and (6)") and insert ("(6), (6A), (6B) and (8))").
Page 40, line 18, leave out ("it applies") and insert ("they apply").
Page 40, line 25, leave out from ("affect") to end of line 26 and insert ("any authority mentioned in the subsections so applied.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendments Nos. 79 to 81 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 40, line 27, leave out ("two") and insert ("four").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 86. This amendment may be thought to be an example of having a foot in the door and seeking slightly to widen the chink. At Committee stage the Government agreed that new licences for the activities authorised by a licence should be available to local authorities to deal with for a period of two months. We were happy to accept—as indeed we argued—that that period should be extended to four months because hard pressed local authorities would have to undertake a whole range of new duties which would be to much higher standards imposed on them by government and expected by the public.
This amendment, which affects Clauses 36 and 42, gives the same period of four months not just for new licences but for variations in licences. In response to earlier amendments at Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that most applications for modification should be simpler than the initial application for a licence. However, I put it to the Government that that is not necessarily the case. It may well be that some modifications of licences will be simple but many will involve a complete reassessment. The time that has now been agreed by the Government as reasonable for a new licence ought to be applied for some of the more complex modifications. We have had to table the amendment to cover all modifications.
I can assure the Government that it is not in the interests of the local authorities to delay consideration of a licence. It costs them more money and gives them more trouble if they have the matter hanging around on their books. Certainly the Association of County
346
Councils, which proposed this amendment to us, has given the assurance that its members would deal with applications with all possible speed. However, in recognition of the fact that modifications could well be as complex as new licences, the association feels that a period of four months, as suggested in Amendment No. 82, would be more reasonable than the two months originally proposed. It therefore hopes that the Government, having recognised half the case, will now recognise the rest of it.
Amendment No. 86 is one which is perhaps even less controversial. It provides that where a matter has not been determined by the Secretary of State within a period of 12 months he shall provide both parties to the appeal with a statement of the reason. I believe that that is in accordance with the normal practice of administrative law—would that be an acceptable phrase?
I hope that the Government will feel that this is a reasonable and constructive amendment. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, my name is also down on this amendment. If it is not accepted by the Government I believe that the local authorities will automatically write to the applicants and ask for an extension anyway. According to this clause it can be agreed in writing. We know what happens so often over planning applications. The fact is that if the authority has not given a decision within two months it will be deemed to have rejected the application. Presumably the matter then goes to appeal. It seems to me to be commonsense to make a little more time available because these are very complicated matters.
A friend of mine has just been dealing with an enormous number of applications for licensing in Northamptonshire. I know the problems that have arisen. Matters have taken a long time to resolve. It is not the fault of the local authorities that delays have occurred. They have to try to get things right.
I believe that four months makes sense. If we leave the period at two months I am sure that almost every authority will ask for an extension.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this matter. It is very unkind to the licence holder to ask him to wait for four months. He already has to wait for at least two months before anything can be done. It is also possible for an agreement to be made between the parties involved.
Equally, the noble Lords who have put their names to Amendment No. 82 have raised some interesting points. I find it interesting that in Clause 35 the period is four months, in Clause 36 it is two months, in Clause 38 it is three months and in Clause 39 it is again two months. I wonder whether those numbers were picked out of a hat.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Opposition Amendment No. 82 asks us to extend the period of time after which a licence holder who has applied for a licence modification may appeal against the refusal

347
of an authority to determine his application. This would bring the provision into line with the time allowed in the case of an application for a new licence.
I do not accept the parallel made with new licence applications for two reasons: first, because the process of modifying an existing licence is less time-consuming than processing a new application and two months should be an adequate period; secondly, the point which has just been made by my noble friend Lord Balfour.
A licensee seeking a modification has a business under way. To a business time is money and we must give the applicant as early as possible a chance to appeal to the Secretary of State where he feels that the authority is merely delaying. The clause does not say that such applications must be dealt with within two months. Where an application is subject to unintentional delay, the applicant may decide, after receiving the authority's explanation, that a decision would be obtained more quickly by awaiting the completion of the authority's procedures than by appealing.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is correct. Yes, some modifications may be simple and some complex. However, if they are complex the authority and the licensee may agree a longer time period. That is the important point. We are talking about a time period by which we ought to expedite matters in order for companies to continue their business. However, if they mutually agree a longer time period that is permissible.
We are concerned with those instances where it is not a simple matter. New applications will not include, for example, consideration regarding a fit and proper person. That is more time-consuming. It was the introduction of the fit and proper person concept in the original application which led us to extend that period to four months.
I turn to Amendment No. 86. I admire the ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his colleagues, in tabling a fresh amendment on this subject at every stage of the Bill's passage, thus ensuring that no opportunity is lost to discuss the subject of delay in determining appeals to the Secretary of State.
I really have nothing new to say on this subject. The department's performance in determining appeals in the past has not been as speedy as it might have been. A delay of more than a year for poor or no reason is not good enough. However, we have kept the procedures under review and made improvements where possible. There are often good reasons, some of them entirely outside the control of the department, why appeals may be unreasonably delayed. They are often highly technical. They are also quasi-judicial. The parties must therefore be given every opportunity to make representations and rebut each other's views. If an appeal is delayed by the complete silence or protracted evasions of one of the parties then it can be extremely difficult to gather the information necessary to determine an appeal.
348
I assure the House that the department's procedures include setting the parties target dates at all stages. The parties therefore are in no doubt as to the reason for any delays. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, is right to draw attention to the analogy with planning applications. It is common experience that local planning authorities do not deal with planning applications in the specified time. Indeed, the Department of the Environment has for many years kept statistics of the proportion of planning applications that are dealt with within the specified time.
On the other hand, if one is an applicant—as I have recently been to my local borough council—and it states that it cannot deal with the matter within the time, it is generally agreed that it would be rather foolish to accept that as a deemed refusal and go to appeal. It would be much better to accept the delay and hope that one will attain the objective without the further delay of appeal. The Department of the Environment is supposed to have a period of four months to deal with a planning appeal, but it may state that it cannot deal with the appeal in that period. The process may therefore take much longer than the law would appear to require.
In reality it probably makes little difference what is on the face of the Bill. It is the ability of the local authority and the departments to deal with matters within the specified period that is important. The best that I can do is to draw the attention of my noble friend Lady David—in whose name the amendments stand—to the answers given. I do not find them satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. She can then consider what to do next.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Revocation and suspension of licences]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 41, line 5, after ("person") insert ("or the circumstances set out in section 73(3) (c) apply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 82A I speak also to Amendment Nos. 82B and 132A. At the outset I should like to thank the Minister for letting me see a copy of the press release based on the statement that she made at the beginning of today's proceedings. Amendment No. 132A is concerned with fit and proper persons. On that amendment we shall be discussing the issue of training. That was the subject of her statement. It is the subject of the press release.
As the Bill is presently drafted, the criteria for whether a person is fit to be given a waste disposal licence are mainly criminal and technical. The criteria for suspension of a licence also are mainly criminal and technical. They relate to the criminal record and technical competence of the applicant or licence holder and a certain amount of financial provision.
There is a distinction between the original granting of a disposal licence on criteria which are criminal, technical and financial, and the determination

349
whether a person should have a licence revoked or suspended because he is no longer fit. It is possible in those circumstances to take account of a criminal record or technical competence but there is no reference to financial provision. That has to be determined by whether or not the licensee has made, has no intention of making, or is in no position to make financial provision adequate to discharge the obligations arising from the licence. That provision is not very powerful. The authority would have great difficulty in disproving a statement by the disposal company that it has made adequate financial provision to discharge the obligations.
What power does the authority have to investigate the financial records of the company concerned and to make a reasonable assessment as to whether there are financial reasons to revoke or suspend the licence? In the amendments we propose that the powers should be boosted by requiring guarantees, performance bonds and insurance, and the ability to deal with matters which might arise after insolvency.
The most important consideration is to ensure the uninterrupted provision of an efficient service. In these amendments we do not propose any drastic change in the way in which licences are approved. We say that in the case of suspension and revocation—which are of enormous importance to the continuation of an effective service—all possible powers should be taken into account, including the availability of guarantees, performance bonds and requirements for insurance. That is why we are inserting into Clause 37 the circumstances set out in Clause 73(3) (c). Amendment No. 132A is a more complicated amendment. It makes further provision for a fit and proper person.
I refer to the statement made by the Minister at the beginning of today's proceedings. I do not claim that this statement is directly affected by Amendment No. 132A. However, it gives me an opportunity to respond to what she said. We welcome the provisions that are made to provide government funding for compulsory technical qualifications for the waste management industry. We are glad that it is to be done through the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board, which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Gregson.
However, £100,000—the amount of money that is referred to under the contract just concluded with WAMITAB—is half the estimated cost of the work for the development of a qualification system. The sum of £100,000 is not a great deal of money, as I am sure anyone concerned with the activities of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications will readily agree. It is not that WAMITAB is the wrong body. It has the approval and support of all the relevant professional and industrial bodies. Nor is it the case that the objective is wrong. What is now proposed is an improvement on the provision which was previously made. However, I question whether the sum of £100,000 was calculated adequately in relation to the undoubted need of the waste disposal industry for better training. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I do not wish to be drawn into a long argument about who is a fit and proper person. I merely ask those who are interested to obtain a copy of the paper that was read at the NAWDC conference to which I referred when speaking to an earlier amendment by Mr. Stephen Tromans, a solicitor. He delivered what I found to be a most fascinating and disturbing paper about the importation into this sphere of the law of the concept of a fit and proper person. There are ramifications in the legislation which a skilled lawyer can see, and they startled his audience considerably. For example, references have been made to people who have been directors of large companies which have been convicted of an offence. Such a person might be so appalled by what has happened that he resigns from the company and joins another on the footing that its standard will be much higher. In those circumstances the other company could lose its licence because it has as a director a man who at a relevant time had been a director of a company which was convicted. That is the kind of technicality that will arise.
There is the question of adequate financial resources. An entirely new element is being introduced by the EC directive. It will create a civil liability for people who are in breach of their statutory obligations under their site licences. Again, that could give rise to enormous liabilities although, no doubt, in many cases they are insurable. There is also the question of bonding. Will bonds be available to the smaller and medium-sized firms which will be undertaking the work?
That is not directly relevant to the amendment being moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, I say merely that there is a growing sense of unease because unless clear guidance is issued by the Department of the Environment the area will turn out to be a legal minefield. Mr. Tromans' paper spells out some of the tripwires that may explode mines under the industry. If we are to have the concept of criminal convictions, technical ability and financial compe-tence as relevant in the one case why should it not be equally relevant in the other? I do not know the answer but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has at least raised a question in my mind. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, once again I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin not only for his enthusiasm for the subject but also for his contribution in particular to the NAWDC conference. Amendments Nos. 82A and 82B are inappropriate. It is not necessary to revoke or suspend a licence because of a failure during the course of the licence to guarantee that funds will be made available to finance requirements under the licence. An authority should establish the financial soundness of the applicant before issuing the licence and furthermore should ensure that the guarantees required by Clause 73(3) (c) cannot be circumvented by rearrangement of the company's accounts, by bankruptcy or by any other means. There is a variety of ways—there are a variety of ways—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Baroness was right the first time—there is a variety.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I stand corrected. There is a variety of ways in which this can be achieved and they will be the subject of guidance to the authorities from the Secretary of State under subsection (5) of that clause.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, queried the cost of the contract with WAMITAB. I assure him that WAMITAB arrived at this figure and it is right that industry should fund the development of qualifications. I am pleased to say that the waste disposal firms have Produced 50 per cent. of the money and the Government have produced the other 50 per cent. The Government's share is £100,000
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Earlier today I was reliably informed that the NAWDC members have put up £120,000. Therefore, perhaps industry is doing a little more than the Government and they deserve tribute for that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Not only am I corrected on the quality of my English but also on the quality of my mathematics, which has gone awry. There is a partnership between the companies and the Government which is important.
After the initial launch of WAMITAB the costs of qualifications will be largely funded from fees paid by those who obtain qualifications, as is right and proper. Amendment No. 132A also deals with this complex issue. I believe that the noble Lord recognises these complexities because his amendment would give the Secretary of State a good deal of latitude to prescribe what should be deemed to be "adequate financial provision". We are all agreed that waste management will be no place for an inadequately funded operator, especially given the long-term pollution control responsibilities of licensees under the Bill. The questions are: what kind of financial test should be required of an operator and should this be a matter for flexibility or for a prescribed national scheme?
It is a serious challenge to devise a system that will deliver cast iron financial security for pollution control at a site without imposing impossible burdens on industry. The department has a working group involving local authorities and industry which is looking at this problem area. The group has identified a need for further consideration of the range and relativity of risks from landfill sites. That is now being considered and will be taken forward again by the group in due course.
The opposition amendment offers some examples of types of financial provision which might be candidates. However I am not convinced that the answer, when it emerges from the working group and the department's own work, will be a single, mandatory national scheme. The circumstances of sites and site operators vary widely.
If the Government did decide that a compulsory scheme was the answer there is sufficient power to prescribe mandatory licence conditions. Therefore,
352
even if we accept the principle suggested in the amendment it is not necessary. But it is more likely that the answer will be detailed advice suggesting acceptable alternatives in varying circumstances. Under the provisions of the Bill local authorities will be under a duty to have regard to this advice while retaining sufficient flexibility. We shall, of course, consult about this advice before it is issued. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are complex answers and they need careful consideration. First, I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who raised significant and important issues particularly about insurance. He rightly referred to the European Parliament's directive on civil liability issued in June of this year. It stated that producers must obtain compulsory insurance. However, the noble Lord did not mention its proposal that there should be a European fund for compensation for damage caused by waste. In other words the European Parliament took the view—and I believe that it is right—that the insurance industry was not keen on such a risk and would rather not be troubled with it. If we accept the view of the insurance industry and do not make separate provision in the form of a fund we should be at serious risk of running away from the principle to which we are supposed to adhere—that is, that the polluter pays. The polluter only pays if he can be forced to pay and if he continues to have the ability to pay.
That gives rise to my second point in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said about the issue of insolvency. A decision of the House of Lords in Bradley v. Eagle Star Insurance this year held that a party affected by a company's carelessness at a time when the company was insured for such liability cannot take advantage of that assurance if the company becomes insolvent before the liability is formally established. It may take a long time for the liability to be formally established and if the company takes the easy way out of becoming insolvent in the meantime, the polluter certainly is not paying.
In other words, the existing arrangements are quite unsatisfactory. Even if these particular amendments are defective in some way—although I have not heard that they are—something more will have to be done, whether for new licences or for consideration of modification and suspension, which stops people either entering the business without adequate financial provision or from continuing doing the business when their adequate financial provision ceases to become available. If they are not making money or if they are operating inefficiently, their financial position will change and the question of revocation or suspension will continue to be important.
I am far from convinced and I would like to know whether the Government are convinced that a LAWDC will be able to meet any financial surety requirements if it is restrained by the parent local authority capital limits. That comes back to an amendment which we discussed earlier today. I am far from convinced that the method proposed for the

353
establishment of LAWDCs, for their capital provision and for the protection of the public in ensuring that there is a continued effective service is adequate. I have not been reassured by anything which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said and I certainly have not been reassured by anything which the Government have said.
I am confirmed in that view by the fact that the HMIP set up a working group on financial surety which is supposed to deal with that issue but that has not met now for a year. Something is wrong and the Government's answers have not given me any assurance that they appreciate what is wrong or that they appreciate, through the drafting of the Bill, the risks which will apply to LAWDCs which do not have adequate financial resources. I am not convinced that the Bill is drafted in the correct way to deal with them.
Again, we may be forced to return to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 82B not moved.]
Clause 39 [Transfer of licences]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 43, line 40, leave out from ("is") to end of line 41 and insert ("partly revoked or suspended under any provision of this Part.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment to the provisions on the transfer of licences. This amendment allows a licence to be transferred even while it is partly revoked because of a failure to pay a charge. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Fees and charges for licences]:
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 44, line 27, at end insert:
("(2A) In making or as the case may be revising a scheme under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself—

(a) that the fees payable to any authority are reasonably likely to amount to the cost of its regulatory functions, including the satisfactory assessment of an applicant as a fit and proper person in accordance with section 35(3) above;

(b) that the resources available to any authority (whether or not arising from fees payable under the scheme) are adequate to cover the costs reasonably likely to arise in respect of its functions concerning closed landfill sites under section 60 below; and

(c) that the resources available to any authority (whether or not arising from fees payable under the Scheme) are reasonably likely to amount to the cost of preventing or undertaking enforcement action against contraventions of the requirements of this Part").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 84 returns to the issue of the burden upon local authorities of the new regulations; the work that they will have to do under the new regulations; and the question of how they will fund the resources.
In Committee we introduced Amendment No. 177 which sought to ensure that the Secretary of State should satisfy himself that the resources available to local authorities to carry out their duties under Clauses 40 and 41 were adequate for the purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, in responding for the Government at that time said that new duties would be matched by the resources made available by new charges. He went on to qualify that by saying:
"We envisage that authorities will be able to recover 100 per cent. of the costs incurred when carrying out these regulatory functions. What the scheme will not do will be to let the authority cover the costs of enforcement".
He made the most extraordinary statement:
"It would be wrong in principle for legitimate business to meet in their fees and charges the costs caused by cowboys". —[Official Report, 21/6/90; col. 1125.]
I do not know whether the Government have reconsidered that statement because presumably it is made on behalf of the Government and it is quite an extraordinary statement to make. It is as if the costs of the police should be borne only by criminals and that it would be wrong for society to bear the costs of running a police force. The costs of the regulation of waste disposal and enforcement of that regulation are one and the same. If charges are to be allowed to cover regulation but not enforcement, that simply means that the poll tax paying public will have to cover all the costs of enforcement and will have no extra resources to do so. I cannot see the logic in that distinction.
In Committee we argued that extra resources should be given to the authorities for all the work. That argument was rejected. We are now saying that proper charges, including all of the costs, should be levied in order to meet the costs so that the general public is not required to meet them. It is not unreasonable to say that the waste disposal industry, which has an interest in diminishing the number of cowboys and should be diminishing the number of cowboys by self-regulation, should be encouraged in those efforts to eliminate cowboys by having to pay the costs of enforcement as well as the cost of the regulation itself in the charges which it pays.
That is particularly serious because it is quite obvious that there will be a very considerable increase in the number of licences which will have to be granted. It is not that there will be a very large number of new licences to be granted but particularly in places like Yorkshire where continuing problems arise from landfill and subsidence and so on, existing licences will have to continue even when no disposal is taking place. There must be aftercare of landfill sites. People in West Yorkshire calculate that the number of licences operating at one time could well quadruple over the next 10 years because of the need for aftercare.
Therefore, the costs and the burden on authorities will be considerable. It does not seem unreasonable that the waste disposal industry as a whole should pay the cost not only of regulation but also of enforcement. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this argument sounds familiar. It has been debated fully in the past and the

355
Government have made clear their commitment to the measures in the Bill which would not be served by a lack of resources. As the amendment acknowledges, local authority resources for Part II of the Bill will be provided from two sources: charges for licences and the local government finance settlement.
The charges for licences are intended to meet the estimated costs of waste regulatory activity for authorities taken as a whole. We are committed to introducing a national scale of charges, so that differences between authorities in the amount of resources they devote to waste regulation—which has been the subject of intense criticism—do not exacerbate the difference in costs of disposal in the areas of the good and not so good authorities. This inevitably means that costs of individual authorities will not necessarily be matched exactly by the revenue from licensing. However, for those authorities not currently providing the required level of regulation, the extra income will provide the resources to allow them to do so. We will of course keep the level of charges under review and will consult local authorities and industry on the level at which they should be set.
The other source of resources for Part II of the Bill will come from the local government finance settlement. That will deal with the costs not covered by licence charges—mainly the costs of prosecution of offenders and the costs of monitoring closed landfills —where such costs cannot be recovered from the owner of the land. It cannot be right, as the amendment proposes, that the costs of monitoring closed landfills under Clause 60—which refers to landfills closed before the new procedures of the Bill come into force—should be recovered from current licence holders.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the Government's preliminary proposals for the 1991–92 settlement last July. He said that he thought it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend £39 billion next year on revenue expenditure, which is a very substantial increase over the corresponding figure of £32.8 billion for this year. It also represents an increase of over 7 per cent. on the amount that local authorities are actually spending this year.
That figure was arrived at only after careful consideration of all the factors, including the needs of waste regulation authorities, after discussions with the local authority associations at which they put forward their views on what needed to be spent. The Government have made full and proper provision for local authority spending next year, taking full account of the pressures they will face, and of course these procedures will be followed for future years. Authorities will have the resources which are necessary to fulfil their duties on waste disposal.
Regarding the further costs mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the costs of inspecting and monitoring will be covered in the licence fee; the costs of prosecution will not. If the prosecution is successful costs will be awarded to the authority by the court. I hope that with those explanations the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose the noble Earl must say that. No one from the Government Front Bench can stand without making the patently incredible claim that the Government's rate support grant settlement—as I insist on calling it —is adequate and takes into account all relevant considerations.
I notice that the noble Earl said that the settlement figure "is discussed" with the local authorities rather than "agreed" with the local authorities. We know that in many respects Government support for local authorities will not be adequate. It is only being increased because of the wild inefficiency and injustice of the poll tax. I do not believe that the noble Earl seriously expects me to take the arguments he put forward with anything other than extreme political scepticism. Nevertheless, he does not intend to move from the quite irrational position in which he finds himself.
It is not true that the costs of prosecution awarded by the courts will cover all the costs. They will largely cover the legal rather than the administrative costs of enforcing the waste disposal regulations. There is no rational distinction between the costs of licensing in the first place, inspection in the second place, and enforcement in the third place. They are all part of the same thing. They should all be covered either by extra grant to local authorities, of which we are not assured, or by charges to the waste disposal industry, which is what is now being rejected by the Government.
I am disappointed by the answers given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde) moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 44, line 37, after ("Authority") insert ("and a waste regulation authority in Scotland shall pay to any river purification authority which it consults in relation to a licence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 85 simply corrects a discrepancy in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Appeals to Secretary of State from decisions with respect to licences.]
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 47 [Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 52, line 28, at end insert ("in accordance with any plan drawn up or, as the case may be, modified under section 49(1) (c) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 87 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 98. We are dealing with technicalities which could easily become confusing. I shall do my best to clear my own mind, if not the minds of other noble Lords.
In the co-ordination of waste disposal plans we speak of the functions of the waste regulation authority and the waste disposal authority. Those authorities are established by the Bill as having distinctly different functions. The waste regulation authority, as the name implies, is basically a regulatory body. The waste disposal authority is the tendering authority. They are therefore complemen-tary; both are a necessary part of the process.
It is proposed that the waste regulation authority shall be charged with the preparation of a waste disposal plan. It is not proposed that it shall be done in co-ordination with waste disposal authorities, which are estimating the work necessary for the preparation of tenders. It is proposed that the planning work should be done by the regulatory body.
I wish to suggest in all humility that there is something rather peculiar about that. For example, it is not what is done in the regulation of the water industry through the office of water services. It is not done anywhere else in government that I can identify. The plan will be quite complicated. It will contain details of the nature and volume of controlled waste arising from or entering the area; it will contain an opinion by the waste regulation authority of the arrangements needed to be licensed to deal with the waste. The waste regulation authority must consult with the waste collection authority. It allows the regulation authority to consult with such persons as it considers appropriate, but there is no specific reference to the waste disposal authorities. The waste disposal authorities are the ones doing the preparatory work for tendering. It would surely be sensible for them to be consulted, and for waste disposal plans to be co-ordinated with all the authorities affected.
I apologise for the complexity of the amendments. They arise from the complexity of the plan proposed by the Government. In this case the Government have made a mistake. I am sure that inadvertently they have inadequately provided for the preparation of waste disposal plans for any given area. I believe that these amendments will be helpful in putting that right. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 87 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would require a waste disposal authority, when directing a collection authority about where to deliver its waste, to take account of the disposal plan for the area. We do not accept that that is appropriate, and I hope to explain why.
It may be helpful if I begin by saying a few words about the new waste disposal plans which will be produced under Clause 49 of the Bill. The first point to make is that although the name, waste disposal plan, is unchanged, the content of these new waste disposal plans should be quite different from the plans that have been compiled up to now. Current waste disposal plans are compiled by waste disposal authorities. They tend to be operational documents detailing what the authority does at its own sites with household waste. That is not the intention of our new waste disposal plans.
358
In future waste disposal plans will be compiled by regulation authorities. They will identify the current and projected amounts of waste arising in the area. The plan will match those arisings to existing and planned disposal facilities and will identify future needs for new facilities. They will also set out the regulation authorities' policies for waste disposal and recycling. Disposal plans will focus on additional disposal facilities which will be needed in the future. In that way they will act as a guide to investment by waste disposal contractors, who will actually provide the necessary facilities.
Incidentally, a side-effect of this amendment would be to constrain authorities to act within the terms of a plan which could be several years old. The end result could be to discourage the use of new and better facilities that have become available after the adoption of the plan.
Waste disposal plans are there to aid investment planning. They are not of direct relevance to waste producers who will be using those facilities. Collection authorities and disposal authorities have their own distinct functions under the Bill. To require them to exercise these functions only in accordance with the plan would be inappropriate. Disposal authorities will act just like any other waste producer. They should be constrained by the disposal plan only in so far as it details all of the existing facilities available in the area. For those reasons we are unable to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Amendment No. 90, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, requires waste collection authorities to send copies of their recycling plans to the waste regulation authority for their area as well as to the waste disposal authority. In most cases the waste regulation authority and the waste disposal authority will be one and the same. Where that is not the case it will be important for the waste regulation authority to see a copy of the plan which each collection authority in its area draws up. We welcome this proposal and accept it as part of the Bill.
The effect of Amendment No. 91 would be to require regulation authorities to include in their disposal plans details of arrangements made by waste disposal authorities. Amendment No. 98 widens the scope of consultation about disposal plans to include disposal authorities.
Noble Lords will be aware that disposal authorities will in future be prevented from directly carrying out waste disposal themselves. That function will instead be carried out for them by disposal contractors, including LAWDCs, and will therefore be included in the plan. Disposal authorities will in future act just like any other large producer of waste. Like any other waste producer, a disposal authority wishing to comment on a disposal plan will have an opportunity to do so. Every disposal plan will be made available publicly before it is finally determined and comments will be sought. Regulation authorities will be under a duty to take account of any representations they receive before determining their plan.

359
We cannot accept, therefore, that there is any need for disposal authorities to be consulted about the content of regulation authorities' disposal plans. Their future role will be to arrange for the disposal of household waste collected in their area. Disposal authorities will act just like any other waste producer and they should be treated accordingly.
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's agreement to accept my Amendment No. 90. All I can say on his response to the other amendments is that the complexity of the subject has defeated him nearly as much as it has defeated me. I do not think that even the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, would care to speak in the pulpit on this subject with any confidence that his congregation would understand what he was saying.
I did not hear in the response from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, an adequate explanation of why the regulatory authorities should be acting as a planning body. To that extent I am still unconvinced by his reply to the major thrust of my amendments. However, in gratitude for having even a small amendment accepted I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87A not moved.]
Clause 48 [Waste recycling plans by collection authorities]:
[Amendment No. 88 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 53, line 40, leave out from ("cost") to ("the") in line 41 and insert ("or saving to the authority attributable to").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out that although a local authority could be involved in costs dealing with the recycling of waste, equally there could be savings. In my view he made an important point and that is why I have tabled these amendments. However, the words "or savings" would have made the clause read rather awkwardly, particularly paragraph (f). I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for her help in improving the wording. I hope that the present wording of Amendments Nos. 88A and 89A meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and has the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understood that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was intending to speak also to a number of other amendments which are grouped together; notably, Amendments Nos. 89A—which is his own—93, 99 to 103 and 105. I have agreed to a request that my Amendment No. 90A should be included in the group.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps it would help if I said that my understanding is that my noble friend Lord Balfour was speaking to Amendments Nos. 88A and 89A and that I would eventually speak to Amendments Nos. 99, 101, 103 and 105. I believe that the noble Lord,
360
Lord Addington, will be speaking to Amendments Nos. 100 and 102 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was my understanding, too. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, wishes to speak to his Amendment No. 89A.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I did not want to speak to amendments tabled by other noble Lords. They must speak for themselves. I say that with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as I do not wish to be offensive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I will gladly speak to Amendment No. 90A if that will benefit the debate, but the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has not yet spoken to his Amendment No. 89A. Clearly he will be doing so later, and that creates some difficulty.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, my understanding is that my noble friend spoke to both of his amendments, Amendments Nos. 88A and 89A.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on that basis I apologise. I am happy to speak to Amendment No. 90A although it is on a slightly different subject. We are concerned here with the labelling of products derived from recycled waste. The amendment says that,
"the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability"—
note the cautious wording used—
"of requiring the labelling of products derived from recycled waste as to the level of such recycled material which they contain, and to the need to maximise the proportion of such materials collected by the authorities exercising functions under this section".
I do not want to repeat the arguments put forward on Monday when we were speaking about air pollution control because the arguments are similar on the recycling of waste, which is the responsibility of waste disposal authorities and of all authorities concerned with the waste business.
The White Paper states that the Government are establishing an official eco-labelling system to provide authoritative advice to consumers and to encourage the production of more environmentally friendly products. When we considered this matter as regards Part I, I was dissatisfied with the suggestion that this should be a flexible voluntary scheme working with market forces and preferably operating throughout the European Community.
I have no objection to operating throughout the European Community but some of the elements of eco-labelling—if one must use that unpleasant phrase —will not necessarily be achieved by a voluntary scheme relying on or working with market forces. The important point to recognise in considering this amendment is that the proportion of recycled materials on which that is based is actually falling at present. In other words, there are so-called recycled materials that contain recycled materials but to a lesser extent. If the public are to be aware of the validity of the claim for the content of recycled materials, then the proportion should be labelled. It

361
should also be a requirement that the Secretary of State be able to enforce that such labelling takes place if he considers it desirable.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 100 and 102 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra. The amendments oblige waste collection authorities to pass on savings on disposal costs made to them by waste disposal authorities and also to pass on savings on collection costs which have occurred because of recycling to the individuals and bodies collecting the waste for recycling. That effectively means that the direct benefit of any money saved should be passed on to the people along the line who have helped in the recycling process, including the recycler.
The Government's advisory group on recycling said that savings in costs should be passed on. It said:
"The group also considers that waste collection authorities should also have a duty to offer credits to voluntary bodies".
Effectively, these two amendments are calling for the savings which are incurred to be passed down through the whole process so that a degree of equity is established. That would also enable the bodies involved in the recycling process to benefit from that process.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to respond to Amendments Nos. 88A, 89A, 90A, 100, 102 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 99, 101, 103 and 105. Amendments Nos. 88A and 89A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour, make the perfectly reasonable point that a waste collection authority should be able to achieve savings through the implementation of a waste recycling plan, particularly in later years when the initial capital costs have been met. Some authorities already claim that their recycling operations are making a surplus, although their accounting practices do not always make it possible to assess the situation clearly.
The Bill certainly does not stop any authority from including details of projected savings in its recycling plan. Indeed one would imagine that authorities which expected to make significant savings would want to highlight the fact. We will be issuing guidance to local authorities on the contents of their recycling plans and I can undertake that we will include the need to identify savings as well as costs in that guidance. The amendments are welcome and I ask your Lordships to accept them into the Bill.
Amendment No. 90A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, aims to promote the labelling of products to show how much recycled material they contain and to promote recycling. However, the amendment seeks to further these aims by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to these matters when he makes directions governing the drawing up of recycling plans by waste collection authorities. I regret that this amendment would not achieve what I think the noble Lord had in mind.
The amendment refers to the directions which the Secretary of State may make concerning the time which collection authorities take to draw up recycling
362
plans. These directions would cover waste collection authorities who themselves have no means to control the labelling of products in the way which the noble Lord would wish. Furthermore, the amendment would have the Secretary of State take account of the need for waste collection authorities to maximise the proportion of products made out of recycled material which they collect. However, it would not necessarily be appropriate for a collection authority to aim to do that where, for instance, there were other recycling schemes run by third parties or by the waste disposal authority which operated in the collection authority's area.
I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government are committed to eco-labelling—albeit that he does not like the expression—to provide consumers with authoritative advice on environmentally friendly products. We hope to see a common scheme operating across Europe. In the environment White Paper we have also committed ourselves, when parliamentary time is available, to legislate to tighten up the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act as regards environmental claims. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Amendments Nos. 99, 101 and 103 in my name extend the provision for the payment of recycling credits so that waste collection authorities have a duty to pay credits to waste disposal authorities and a power to pay them to third parties, where the disposal authority or the third party collects waste for recycling and a saving to the collection authority results. The Bill as drafted provides only for the payment of recycling credits by waste disposal authorities to reflect savings in disposal costs.
The reason for these three amendments is that while the idea of recycling credits has been broadly welcomed by local authorities, several waste disposal authorities have pointed out that recycling waste material can bring savings in the costs of collection as well as the cost of disposal. Where waste disposal authorities operate civic amenity sites to which the public bring waste for recycling, there is no need for this waste to be collected by the collection authority. The same is true where a third party, such as a charity or voluntary body, organises a collection of waste, such as newspaper, for recycling.
These amendments therefore extend the provision for the payment of recycling credits to reflect the potential for savings in collection costs. They mirror the provision in the Bill for payment of recycling credits where there are savings in the cost of disposal. I hope that they will encourage waste disposal authorities to increase the amount of waste which they recycle through the provision of civic amenity sites and by other means.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister leaves her own amendments can she help me on one small point? I do not expect to receive an answer immediately. I understand that the department has been carrying out a survey on the level of rebates

363
being given at the moment for recycling. I hope that she will agree to let me have a copy of the results of that survey.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am getting an affirmative nod that the results of the survey will be made available. I understand that it is still continuing.
Amendment No. 100 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would place a duty on waste disposal authorities to pay recycling credits to third parties. No doubt the noble Lord is keen to encourage increased recycling by the payment of recycling credits and fears that where disposal authorities have no obligation to pay credits to third parties they may choose not to do so. The Bill as drafted gives disposal authorities a power to make such payments, but leaves it open to the Secretary of State to turn this into a duty by regulation where he considers it appropriate to do so. We do not believe that there is yet a need for the Secretary of State to make use of this power. It follows that we do not think it timely to place a duty on disposal authorities to pay credits to third parties.
It may take some time for local authorities to identify all those third parties in their area who have a claim to receive recycling credits. When they have identified all those bodies undertaking recycling in their area, they may decide that it would not be desirable for credits to be paid in every case. There may be instances where economies of scale make it more appropriate for the waste collection authority to undertake recycling rather than it being done by voluntary bodies. There may be other cases where a number of different bodies are undertaking similar schemes in the same area. It would not necessarily be appropriate for an authority to be required to pay recycling credits to a number of competing schemes in the same area, particularly where some of the schemes yielded only small quantities of waste. Giving disposal authorities discretion to pay credits will allow them to make sensible judgments about the type of third party recycling scheme which should be encouraged in their area.
Amendment No. 102, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would place a similar duty on waste collection authorities to pay credits to waste disposal authorities and third parties where the collection and recycling of waste by a waste disposal authority or third party results in savings in collection costs for the waste collection authority. This amendment is similar in intent to Amendments Nos. 99, 101 and 103 which stand in my name, with the exception that the noble Lord wishes to place a duty on collection authorities to pay credits to third parties. The arguments which I have just outlined against placing such a duty on waste disposal authorities apply here too. Since Amendment No. 102 is similar in intent to those which stand in my name, and in the light of the points I have made about imposing a duty to pay credits to third parties, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press these amendments.
Amendment No. 105 in my name removes the provision for the Secretary of State to arbitrate in any dispute as to the amount of the recycling credit to be paid where the parties cannot agree. Regulations
364
governing the calculation of recycling credits will be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 51(5) of the Bill. Requests for the Secretary of State to arbitrate in disputes could place an undue and unnecessary burden on him. I am confident that the system of recycling credits will work without the need for the arbitration provision.
In summary, I ask the House to accept Amendments Nos. 88A, 89A, 99, 101, 103 and 105 and to reject Amendments Nos. 90A, 100 and 102.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, it is my duty now officially to call my amendments. With the approval of the House, I beg to move Amendment No. 88A.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 89 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 54, line 10, leave out first ("of") and insert ("or savings attributable to")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 54, line 23, after ("authority") insert ("and waste regulation authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 87. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90A not moved.]
Clause 49 [Waste disposal plans of waste regulation authorities]:
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 55, line 7, leave out from ("regard") to end of line 9 and insert ("both to the likely cost of the arrangements or modification and to their likely beneficial effects on the environment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stems from a debate that took place in Committee during which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, tabled an amendment with a purpose similar to that of this amendment. My noble friend Lord Hesketh under-took during that debate to consider the merit of amending Clause 49 to require disposal plans to include information about the cost and savings of various disposal options. This amendment reflects the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I am grateful for the opportunity he gave us to reconsider this point.
Amendment No. 92 emphasises the Government's view that disposal plans should weigh up the costs of various disposal options and their environmental impact. This will enable regulation authorities to set out a framework of options for waste producers, including disposal authorities and disposal contractors, to consider when making decisions about waste disposal. Central government will be able to use this information to carry out the undertaking given in the recent White Paper; namely, to monitor national waste disposal trends.
Perhaps it is also worth pointing out that Amendment No. 92 corrects the drafting of Clause 49

365
to make clear that there will be no direct costs or indeed savings accruing to regulation authorities themselves from the disposal options in the plan. I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one must not be ungrateful for what is clearly a well-intended amendment which aims to reflect the spirit of the amendment moved in Committee. However, it appears to us to be a little restricted. It allows for consideration of modifications. But if one is modifying a waste disposal plan there may be various ways of modifying it, some of which may be better than the first one that occurs. Surely there ought to be the possibility of considering alternatives to the modification proposed.
I am not convinced that with the restrictive wording that has now been produced we shall reflect the overriding requirement, which is to achieve environmental protection.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, it is only right that in the absence of my noble friend Lord Ezra I should at least thank the Minister for honouring an undertaking that was given in Committee. I cannot speak on behalf of my noble friend at this time. He may have reservations similar to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Nevertheless, we are moving in the right direction, and therefore I am grateful for that concession.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 55, line 22, at end insert:
("() the sites of landfills that are, or are likely to be in the plan period, closed in its area, the steps that are being or may need to be taken in respect of such closed sites and the costs or likely costs of such steps;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the preparation of waste disposal plans and seeks to impose an extra obligation on the local authorities. Under Clause 51 a waste regulation authority will have to take certain steps with regard to closed landfill sites. Thus it should surely state what it will or may have to do in its plan, and the cost of those measures. This is particularly important as the Government have put quite onerous duties on waste regulation authorities under Clause 51 but are unlikely to provide any extra cash.
Draft amendments to the European Community directive on hazardous waste will require competent authorities—waste regulation authorities—to cover in their plans disused tips and contaminated sites which need to be kept under surveillance or reclaimed. It is therefore logical to make this amendment to deal with the matter now. It would also be reassuring to residents who may live in close proximity to one of these landfill sites that is about to be closed. I remember from my time in local government the problems we had at one or two sites. The residents' associations insisted quite rightly on knowing exactly
366
what the local authority intended to do when a site was closed and exactly how it would manage it thereafter. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 would add a requirement that regulation authorities' disposal plans should include details of closed landfills in the area and steps taken to deal with them. I hope I can persuade the noble Lord that the amendment is not necessary. This is because disposal plans are intended to be strategic forward-looking documents. They will act as a guide to future investment in disposal facilities. They are not the place to put details of closed landfills.
That is not to say that closed landfills are to be overlooked. Clause 60 imposes a duty on regulation authorities to identify all the closed landfills in their area and to take appropriate steps to prevent pollution from those sites. Closed landfill sites will also be identified in the register of contaminated land under Clause 136. Regulation authorities will also set out, in their public registers and annual reports, details of any action they have taken to prevent pollution from closed landfills.
I hope the noble Lord will be reassured that plans for future investment in waste management facilities are not the right place for details of closed sites but that those details are adequately recorded elsewhere.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I take note of what he has said. I accept the correction as to where this amendment should have arisen. I understand that the matter is covered. However, his reply did not cover the question of costs, although I hardly expected to get a reply on that subject either. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment Nos. 96 to 98 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Functions of waste disposal authorities]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 98A:
Page 57, line 31, after ("waste") insert ("free of charge").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 98B. The amendments remove a small but quite real anomaly about the provision for civic amenity sites.
I live at one end of the London borough of Haringey, which happens to be closer to a civic amenity site in Barnet than to my own borough's civic amenity site at the far end of Tottenham. It is therefore convenient for me to go to the Barnet site rather than to my own site. No doubt there are people living in Enfield who find it easier to go to the Haringey Tottenham site than they do to go to their own site, wherever that may be. Therefore, what we provide in these amendments is the opportunity for people living outside the area of the waste disposal authority to use the civic amenity site for the deposit

367
of household waste. The amendments also provide that the authority may make a discretionary charge for the use of that site.
I do not know how such a system could be arranged. I do not know, whether, for example, each time I went to the Summer Lane site I should be required to produce my driving licence or something of that nature to prove that I live in the borough. No doubt an ingenious authority could find some way of working such a system. I do not yet carry a badge which indicates that I have paid my poll tax, although it may be that we shall be forced into such a position in due course. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these two amendments. We believe that he has identified a weakness. Due to an oversight, the provisions in the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, relating to civic amenity sites, were not accurately reflected in the legislation. I am, therefore, happy to accept the noble Lord's amendments, which put right that error.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that statement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 98B:
Page 57, line 32, leave out ("in the course of a business") and insert ("by other persons").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Payments for recycling and disposal etc. of waste]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 58, line 38, at end insert:
("(1A) Where, by reason of the discharge by a waste disposal authority of its functions, waste arising in its area does not fall to be collected by a waste collection authority under section 44 above, the waste collection authority shall make to the waste disposal authority payments, in respect of the waste not falling to be so collected, of such amounts representing its net saving of expenditure on the collection of the waste as the authority determines.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 58, line 45, at end insert:
("(2A) Where a person other than a waste collection authority, for the purpose of recycling it, collects waste which would fall to be collected under section 44 above, the waste collection authority may make to that person payments, in respect of the waste so collected, of such amounts representing its net saving of expenditure on the collection of the waste as the authority determines.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 59, line 7, at end insert:
("(4A) For the purposes of subsections (1A) and (2A) above the net saving of expenditure of a waste collection authority on the collection of any waste not falling to be collected by it is the amount of the expenditure which the authority would, if it had had to collect the waste, have incurred in collecting it .").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 59, line 8, after ("regulations") insert ("and after consultation with organisations representative of waste regulation and waste disposal authorities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 106. Both amendments have the same objective, which is to ensure that the payment of recycling credits, which is something which we all favour, should actually reflect the real costs and that the whole principle of recycling credits should not get out of hand.
There are many waste authorities—we discussed the matter at some length in Committee—which are providing rebates for those who recycle certain material and thereby reduce the amount of waste being presented for disposal. However, they are doing so on the basis of what they think it is worth to them. There are different ways of calculating what it is worth and different costs apply in different parts of the country.
One of the ways of calculating the benefit of recycling as a basis for rebates is the average cost of recycling a given quantity of a given material: the other is a more complicated calculation of the marginal cost of recycling an additional amount or, indeed, on certain occasions, of setting up additional plant to carry out the disposal. Different waste authorities have adopted different principles for calculating the rebates.
In addition, there are real differences between one part of the country and another as regards the length of the journey to the landfill or the amount of capital required to set up the disposal plant, which will vary very much from one part of the country to another.
I understand that the Government have already commissioned a study by Touche Ross on the savings accruing from recycling. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister can tell us anything about the results which are emerging from that study. Starting from first principles, one can be reasonably certain that such a study would indicate a wide variation. Therefore, the question posed by these probing amendments is: will there be a single credit level for the whole country? Further, will it be on an equal footing? Clearly that would be an administrative convenience, but it would not actually reflect the savings which might accrue from recycling.
In Committee we proposed another way of looking at the financial incentives. We cannot repeat the arguments we put forward at that time. Nevertheless, we think that the Secretary of State should, before setting levels, take account of the variation in costs arising in different parts of the country and from different methods of calculation. We also think that he should consult with the representatives of the organisations which are responsible for such matters. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall address first Amendment No. 104. These regulations will be crucial

369
to the successful operation of the system of recycling credits. I understand the noble Lord's concern that there should be adequate consultation on their form and content.
Work is already under way to provide a firm foundation for the making of these regulations. We have engaged independent consultants to advise on the formula for calculating recycling credits and the way in which a system of credits might operate. Questionnaires have been sent to all local authorities in order to establish the costs involved in waste disposal and the savings which could accrue from an increase in the amount of waste recycled and a resulting reduction in the amounts being sent for disposal. Indeed, the problem so far has been not a reluctance on our part to involve waste disposal authorities but a reluctance on the part of some of them to respond to the questions asked by our consultants. I would urge disposal authorities who have not yet responded to do so quickly.
I am able to give the assurance that all the results of that work will be made known to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The results of these questionnaires will be studied carefully, together with the results of further discussions with individual local authorities and the waste disposal industry. We expect the consultants to report back to us before Christmas.
There will be full consultation in the New Year on draft regulations governing the calculation of recycling credits. This will involve consultation with representatives of local authorities and with the recycling industry. It is in everyone's interests that the system of recycling credits should encourage increased recycling, and the Secretary of State will do everything which he can to ensure that this is the case. I welcome the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment, but I do not feel that it should be necessary to prescribe the bodies which the Secretary of State should consult.
Amendment No. 106, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would require the Secretary of State for the Environment to take account of any burden falling on waste regulation authorities when he made regulations for the calculation of recycling credits. The payment of recycling credits will have resource implications for waste disposal authorities and for waste collection authorities but not for waste regulation authorities. Where collection or disposal authorities pay recycling credits, the amount of the credit will represent the saving which they enjoy as a result of increased recycling. Their net expenditure should therefore stay the same. There should be no need for collection or disposal authorities to have additional resources to operate a scheme of recycling credits. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the assurance that the Government is in agreement with the spirit of these two amendments. However, to my embarrassment, I realise that I did not complete my argument. I talked about different ways of calculating the savings from recycling and
370
about different ways of calculating the alternative costs of disposal; but I did not refer to the way of calculating recycling credits by looking at the value of the recycled material. That is where there is a serious danger that it may be the waste disposal authorities which are subsidising the recycling industry. I do not say that out of any antagonism towards the recycling industry. However, if it is government policy to support recycling, such support should be provided by government and not by individual waste authorities.
If one looks at the case of London, the cost of producing recycled paper may be of the order of £10 per tonne but the value of the recycled paper once it has been produced may be only £1 per tonne. If we give a subsidy of £10 a tonne we are in danger of giving a substantial subsidy to the recycling industry. That may be a matter that we shall have to pursue after the Bill has been passed when we discuss the regulations. I am sure that the local authority associations in particular will be eager to do that.
Despite the Government's acceptance of the spirit of the amendments, I still have the feeling that the method of calculation proposed in the Bill is somewhat crude and that the Government may regret the formulation that they have used and might, with hindsight, have preferred what we propose. Nevertheless, in the spirit of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 59, line 10, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 12 and insert ("(1A), (2), (2A) and (3) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Clause 52 [Duties of authorities as respects disposal of waste collected: Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 107 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 59, line 37, at end insert:
("and these duties shall relate to the activities and operations of waste disposal contractors whether in the public or private sectors").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if your Lordships agree, and my noble friend Lord Balfour agrees with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I should prefer to discuss Amendment No. 107A on its own rather than with the grouping that is suggested. As the amendment is rather complex I should prefer that it stood on its own.
Clause 52 proposes that the Scottish local authority be given power to authorise itself to carry out waste disposal and collection operations through regulatory duties. I am aware that there is no requirement that the operations be carried out by a fit and proper person as is defined under Clause 37 on waste management licences. Under that clause such a requirement is detailed for waste management operations in England and Wales and the licence can be revoked where the operator is not fit and proper. I

371
may be mistaken, but it appears to me that Clause 52 provides no justification for exempting Scotland from that requirement.
In Clause 30(7) authorities are required to make administrative arrangements for keeping their own functions as waste regulatory authorities separate from their functions as a waste disposal authority. However, the clause details a situation regarding waste management in Scotland and proposes the duties that the local authority will have to carry out in respect of the regulatory and operational tasks for collection and disposal but does not provide for a separation of the two types of duty. Furthermore, as I see it, Clause 52 does not detail the procedures which would be followed where the conditions of a resolution by a body offering waste management services are breached; nor does the clause define such a breach as a criminal offence. It again appears that one would have to look for further clarification of the procedures in Scotland so as to prevent any confusion arising where those using and offering the services are the same body.
Clause 52 contains no proposal that the authority in Scotland carrying out the waste management service should be liable for fees or charges, or for site inspections of their operations which are regulated, again, by the local authority. That is inconsistent with the proposals for England and Wales contained in the Bill.
The clause contains no proposals that the local authority in Scotland, carrying out its operational duties, shall make any financial provision for long term pollution control at landfill sites. Again, there is no justification for the exclusion of that proposal. It is inconsistent. Your Lordships might agree that it is unfair that private contractors carrying out waste collection, disposal or other associated operational tasks are discriminated against in the clause. By that, I mean that there is no provision to ensure that the private sector has access to tendering for the waste management services.
The disposal of household waste collected by authorities wearing their collection authority hat will not be subjected to competitive tender. Under Clause 52 it will be dealt with by the operational side of that authority. It is clearly unfair to the private sector which is capable of offering those services.
I shall now refer to the consultations that took place during the long summer Recess, culminating in a letter of 21st September from my noble friend the Minister who points out:
"Scottish local authorities will not be required to set up arm's length waste disposal companies".
She then refers to the consultation paper and the results of it. Finally, that paragraph states:
"because the private sector was unlikely to be interested in competing in those districts where waste horizons are small and widely dispersed".
I of course accept that the situation in Scotland is different because of the small and dispersed population of many district councils. A different regime may well have to apply; but as I have sought to suggest, there is discrimination against the private
372
sector which may one day wish to compete. As I see it —I readily accept that I could be wrong—private contractors will be discriminated against by the provisions of Clause 52. That is unfair.
The general concept, which appears to have been given little consideration, suggests that there is no inbuilt incentive for the authorities to improve their efficiency, accountability or performance. The proposals offered in Clause 52 are not consistent with the proposals contained in Clause 44(2) which refers to the disposal of commercial and industrial waste.
While that clause proposes that the operational arm of the local authority shall compete with the private sector for the disposal of such waste, Clause 52 offers no explanation as to why that policy of competitive tendering—although it must be said that the authority is under no obligation to charge full, economic prices—is not adopted for the disposal of domestic waste.
The amendment seeks to restore the competitive balance in waste management between the public and private sectors. It seeks to clarify the local authority's role when carrying out its regulatory duties as well as its operational services, which are all associated with waste management. While recognising the different circumstances obtaining in Scotland, it attempts to reduce the inconsistencies between the situation in Scotland and that applying in England and Wales.
As I said at the outset, those matters are complex. They affect a different environment, if I can use that term loosely. I regret that I have not had the opportunity of greater and more in-depth consultations with my noble friend. Tonight I ask him to accept that the matters I raise are of a complex nature. Will he offer further to consider these matters so that perhaps before the next stage we may have additional discussions? I certainly do not propose to press the amendment which, in any event, may be technically inaccurate. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I think that there may have been a misunderstanding. As I understand Part II of the Bill, there is no provision in the Scottish legislation for waste disposal contractors. However, my noble friend Lord Lucas made an interesting reference to Clause 37. Quickly re-reading that clause, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Strathclyde may consider that Clause 37 should not apply to Scotland. Although there are contractors in England, the licensing provisions in Clause 37 seem to deal with sites or areas with licences for dumping of rubbish. This may be in the hands of the Scottish local authorities, but I cannot see the same kind of disposal contractors in Scotland as are provided for in England.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked for his Amendment No. 107A to be taken on its own. I respect that, but in the grouping of the following amendments, Amendments Nos. 108, 111, 112 and 114 are all consequential upon amendments which were moved either by myself or other noble Lords at Committee stage. I hope I need say no more about them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my concern about the Bill arises directly from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It is that the Scottish people seem to be quite undesirably discriminated against. It has been the common view in all parts of the House that the new arrangements which are set up in Part II of the Bill for separating authorisation from disposal, providing new and stringent controls through the licensing system, establishing new offences for breaches of the terms of licences and so on are all with the express intention of improving the environment through the much better handling of waste.
Most of this does not apply at all to Scotland. Local authority operations are in no way subject to waste management licences. There is no requirement for local authority operations to be carried out by technically competent people. We had a discussion earlier about how that aim will be achieved. Authorities do not have to pay anyone any fees. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. They do not have to pay fees for licences, inspection or monitoring. For that reason, they will not have to charge the full cost of waste disposal. In fact, they will not have to charge the economic price for disposing of waste.
Therefore after all the incentives that we have talked about of reimbursing the man who produces the waste with the full cost of disposal, the Scots will get off "scot free", if I may say so. I do not understand this. It goes further than that. Local authority operations will not be subject to prosecution for pollution offences. Why not? Why should Scottish people not have the protection that is given to the people of England and Wales whereby those who are guilty of pollution offences will be hauled before the courts? Why should they be allowed to get away with it in Scotland? Perhaps most serious of all, there is no provision in the Bill requiring Scottish operators to make financial provision for long-term pollution control at landfill sites.
I see all this as discriminating against Scotland. Here we have a splendid new system which will result in improving the environment and giving proper effect to the principle that the polluter pays. The firm which produces the waste will have to bear the full cost of the business, as we have just been discussing. This will reduce the amount of waste that has to be disposed of; the producer of the waste will bear the full costs of its disposal.
I must ask even now, at this late stage, whether it is impossible to extend to the people of Scotland the considerable benefits which the Bill will extend to the people and environment of England and Wales. I simply cannot understand why they have been left out in this way. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do something to allay my disquiet about the matter. Even if the Government cannot accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas, perhaps they can give some undertaking that at Third Reading they will go some way towards redressing what seems to me to be very unfair treatment of Scotland.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I too shall speak to Amendment No. 107A which my noble friend Lord Lucas requested should be unbundled from the rest of the grouping. Perhaps it would be useful if I explained what Clause 52 does. It is in essence a restatement of Section 15 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which gives disposal authorities in Scotland the duty to arrange for the disposal of waste collected by them in their capacity as waste collection authorities. In Scotland, the functions of waste collection and disposal authorities are integrated within district and islands councils.
The only duty in Clause 52(1) is to arrange for the disposal of waste. The actual disposal may thus be carried out by the authority itself or by private contractors. There has been a growing trend for local authorities, particularly in the central belt of Scotland, to make arrangements with private contractors to dispose of their waste. We estimate that in Scotland over the past four years the proportion of municipal waste going to private sites has increased from about 7 per cent. to about 20 per cent. There is no doubt that such arrangements can and will continue to be made under Clause 52.
The operations of private waste disposal contractors will be overseen by waste regulation authorities in accordance with the new waste management licensing provisions in Clauses 34 to 43. These apply throughout Great Britain. The disposal authorities' own operations will be overseen by the waste regulation authorities in accordance with the provisions of Clause 53. The basic requirements of Clause 53 are broadly similar to the requirements of Clauses 34 to 43, in particular as regards consultation with the river purification authority, the Health and Safety Executive and the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor bodies.
The essential point here is that the overseeing body is the waste regulation authority whereas my noble friend's amendment attempts to give waste disposal authorities some duties in relation to private contractors which we do not think would be right.
I admit straight away that in Scotland the waste regulation authority is also the district or islands council. However, the distinction between regulation and disposal authority will not be artificial. That is ensured by subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 30. These new provisions require each district and islands council to make administrative arrangements to separate its functions as regulation authority from its function as disposal authority. These arrangements must be approved by the Secretary of State. The arrangements made might involve neighbouring authorities grouping together to discharge the regulation function. Hence it is important that the Bill should clearly distinguish between the functions of regulation and disposal. This amendment appears to fail to do so.
I must also say that the Scottish Office consultation paper issued in March 1989 recommended that arm's length local authority waste disposal companies should be set up in Scotland. But the majority of respondents to the paper did not favour that way of

375
proceeding. The point was made and accepted by the Government that because of the small and dispersed population of many district councils in Scotland it would be wasteful of resources to require them to set up separate disposal companies and the likelihood of a satisfactory competitive situation being created was remote because the private sector was unlikely to be interested in competing in districts where waste arisings were small and widely dispersed. Even though there are no LAWDCs in Scotland there are private sector contractors. They need all the licensing provisions of the Bill, including the provision for the licence to be revoked or suspended.
My noble friend Lord Lucas invited me to discuss this matter and consider it carefully before we come to the next stage of the Bill, as did my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I shall be delighted to do so.
9 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Balfour for their contributions. I said the matter was complex and I still think it is complex. I do not believe that a Chinese Wall can be erected in Scotland, separating one function from another. I do not believe that the private sector may not in the short term be interested in carrying out the activities which Clause 52 appears to reserve to local authorities.
Having said that, I must express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for his invitation to discuss; these matters. I hope we can come to an arrangement which will satisfy us in this House and the people and the authorities in Scotland as regards a matter which is of considerable importance in the United Kingdom. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 59, line 41, leave out ("in pursuance or) and insert ("under").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 53 [Special provisions for land occupied by disposal authorities: Scotland]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 60, line 43, after ("site") insert ("in or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 110 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 276 and 279. The government amendments are essentially tidying, technical and consequential amendments. I wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his unflagging vigilance. I shall be delighted to accept his Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 114. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendments Nos. 111 and 112:
376
Page 61, line 14, leave out ("in pursuance or) and insert ("under").
Page 61, line 33, after ("waste") insert ("in or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 61, line 40, at end insert:

("(e) where any part of the land to be used is land which has been notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to—

(i) refer the proposal and the statement to the appropriate nature conservation body, and

(ii) consider any representations about the proposal and the statement which that body makes to it during the allowed period,

and in this subsection and subsection (12) of this section any reference to the appropriate nature conservation body is a reference, until the date appointed under section 124(3) below, to the Nature Conservancy Council or, after that date, to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 62, line 7, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 63, line 6, after ("(3) (c)") insert ("or to the appropriate nature conservation body for the making of representations under subsection (3) (e)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Powers for recycling waste]:
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Powers for recycling waste: Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Duty of waste regulation authorities as respects closed landfills]:
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 119A:
Page 67, line 46, leave out ("necessary") and insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 119A I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 119C. The purpose of Amendment No. 119A is to give the waste regulation authorities wider powers to clean up disused landfills to a better standard than that needed simply to prevent further damage to the environment. The current wording of the Bill provides for a waste regulation authority to undertake work at a closed landfill to prevent,
"pollution of the environment or harm to human health".
Such work, under the current wording of the Bill, must be,
"necessary to avoid such pollution or harm".
Similarly, Clause 60(7) states that a waste regulation authority is enabled to recoup costs from the owner of the land for the work undertaken, except where the cost can be proven to be incurred unnecessarily. The purpose of the amendment is to substitute for the concept of necessary the wider test of

377
reasonableness. The latter is the concept used in most other discretionary parts of the Bill and avoids the need to undertake a different test, possibly via the courts when work is undertaken and costs are incurred. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can instantly say that we are happy to be able to accept both the amendments that have been referred to, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. However, with reference to Clause 60, my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Crickhowell raised in Committee the issue of giving the NRA a statutory right to be consulted about pollution dangers from closed landfill sites. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government are agreeing with my noble friends on an appropriate amendment to address this issue. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton will want to table such an amendment on Third Reading. We would warmly welcome such an amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for making that clear. He very courteously wrote to me during the recess to say that the Government would table an amendment which would require the waste regulation authority to consult the NRA when dealing with closed sites which are likely to cause pollution of water.
In Committee both my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who is chairman of the National Rivers Authority, and I were keen that in the first place the National Rivers Authority should be informed of any of these landfill sites. The NRA itself would not necessarily know about such sites whereas the new authority would.
My noble friend spoke merely of consultation and kindly said that he would accept an amendment to achieve that. However, we should bear in mind the desirability of the NRA being kept informed, which is what we sought at Committee stage. Having said that, I look forward to co-operation with my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Kinloss Lady Kinloss moved Amendment No. 119B:
Page 68, line 1, leave out from ("land") to ("by") in line 2 and insert ("the duty imposed").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nathan has asked me to move Amendment No. 119B in his unavoidable absence. It is a drafting amendment. Clause 60 deals with the duty of waste regulation authorities as respects closed landfill sites. Subsection (6) imposes a duty upon the authority to act if it appears to the authority that a closed landfill site is likely to cause pollution or harm to human health. Subsection (7) deals with the recovery of costs by the authority from the owner where the authority has acted under subsection (6) but erroneously refers to "any power", hence the amendment to make subsection (7) consistent with subsection (6). I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, will feel that it has been worth her while to wait until such a late hour, because we are
378
able to accept the amendment to correct this drafting error. I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words in accepting the amendment on behalf of the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 119C:
Page 68, line 6, leave out ("unnecessarily") and insert ("unreasonably").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Public registers]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 70, line 25, leave out ("exercised any power") and insert ("discharged any function").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at this point it may be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if I move Amendment No. 120 in the name of my noble friend; if the noble Lord speaks afterwards; and if I then wind up the debate on his amendments.
Amendment No. 120 on the subject of the public registers of information recognises that the reference to Clause 60 needs to refer to duties as well as to powers. The amendment does that by referring to the exercise of "any function". I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Amendments Nos. 120A to 120F inclusive. All of the amendments are concerned with the public registers which are to be kept by waste regulation authorities. They add to the list of items which are to be included in the public registers. The amendments are self-explanatory. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House that I should argue them at length—possibly not.
Amendment No. 120A is perhaps the most important of the amendments and adds a reference to Clause 69 which deals with imminent danger of serious pollution. It seems to us self-evident that that should be part of the registers. Amendment No. 120B refers to investigations which affect human health or serious pollution of the environment. It is comparable to an amendment that we discussed on Monday when we considered integrated pollution control. Amendment No. 120C refers to the results of monitoring, and Amendment No. 120D refers to the results of a different kind of monitoring. I could go on, but I shall not.
There is a danger that the public registers may contain only legal information concerning licences which have been applied for or granted, notices issued, appeals and certificates and so on rather than containing information which will really be of value to the general public, such as information about environmental quality as it is affected by waste disposal and reclamation activities. I recognise that if those items are to be included there will be resource implications for the waste regulation authorities and it is clear that they should be reflected in the finances which are made available to them.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, in view of the grouping, I must at this stage say that I rather sympathise with the one amendment that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not move—Amendment No. 120G. He has quite a good point there. But equally I should like to speak to my own amendment, No. 121.
Clause 65 has almost the same wording as Clause 22. Identical subsections were added by government amendments at the Committee stage and they now form subsection (3) of both clauses. These amendments are an improvement to the Bill. However, although enforcing authorities are specified in Part I, there are different authorities in Part II as described in Clause 30. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that the word "enforcing" could be misleading and I beg to move that that word be left out.
9.15 p m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I express my gratitude to him for drawing attention to the amendment which I should have spoken to and not moved; namely, Amendment No. 120G, which is comparable to an amendment which we had in Part I and which increases the time available—
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I think the noble Lord means Amendment No. 122A as well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall do that in a minute. I recognise that point as well. Amendment No. 120G extends to 28 days the period available for a determination of whether an item should be excluded from the register on grounds of commercial confidentiality. I follow the point that the noble Earl made—that this is consistent with other provisions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 122A, to which he rightly also referred, has the additional effect of giving the Secretary of State power to substitute another period for the time specified in subsection (3), in regard to information being excluded from the register on the grounds that it is commercially confidential. The amendment adds subsection (8), which is concerned with the automatic expiry of commercial confidentiality after a period of four years. I commend both of those amendments to the House.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I should first like to take Amendment No. 121 in the name of my noble friend Lord Balfour. We are indebted to him for identifying that the word "enforcing" is not appropriate for this part of the Bill, and that that terminology properly belongs to Part I of the Bill. We are happy to accept his amendment to delete the word "enforcing".
I should next like to deal with Amendments Nos. 120A to 120F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. They all seek to introduce new provisions to Clause 63. Dealing first with the last two of these, the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that we can accept one of these amendments; namely, No. 120F. This amendment provides for Part II registers a provision which was inserted at Committee stage for Part I; namely, that where information is excluded
380
from the register on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, there should nevertheless be a statement on the register to the effect that such information exists. It is right that similar provision should be made for Part II.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, dwelt at some length on the remainder of his amendments, and I feel that it would be discourteous if I did not reply with the reasons why we feel that we are not able to accept the remainder of them. We do not feel that we can accept the associated Amendment No. 120E on information excluded on the grounds of national security, as indeed we were not able to accept a similar amendment put down in Committee for Part I. The disclosure of the fact that there were activities being undertaken at a particular location could, in itself, be a risk to national security.
I can only repeat assurances given for Part I of the Bill. Information will not be exempted lightly from the register on the grounds of national security. We will require cogent and specific evidence to substantiate a claim that the disclosure of each piece of information would prejudice national security.
As regards the rest of these amendments, I hope to persuade the noble Lord that they are unnecessary because, where such provisions are not already covered by subsections of Clause 63, we will deal with them in the regulations under paragraph (m). Amendment No. 120A seeks to include details of action taken by authorities to deal with causes of imminent harm under Clause 69. If such action has been taken, it would be most unusual that further action by the authority would not follow, and that action would be covered by the provisions of the register; for instance, any prosecution resulting from the action.
Amendment No. 120B deals with the results of any investigation into possible serious harm or pollution having occurred. Any such action at a licensed site or a closed site would be covered by the provisions of subsection (j) of Clause 63. Any such action in connection with illegal disposal, i.e., fly-tipping, would be covered by either the subsection dealing with prosecutions or that dealing with remedial work that the authority undertakes.
Amendments Nos. 120C and 120D also seek to add information on the results of monitoring of licensed facilities or closed landfills. This is already provided for in subsection (j) relating to licensed facilities and closed landfills because the general provision of the clause allows prescribed particulars of or relating to the discharge of functions regarding licensed facilities or closed landfills.
These amendments deal with the availability of monitoring information. It has always been our intention that monitoring information should be included on the register. We intend to provide for these regulations under subsection (m) where it is not already dealt with in the clause. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that many aspects of his amendments are already dealt with in the clause and

381
by my assurance that further monitoring data will be included in the regulatory provisions where this is necessary.
With regard to Amendment No. 120G the noble Lord seeks to allow the regulation authority 28 days rather than 14 days to decide on whether information is commercially confidential. Fourteen days is the period adopted in both Parts I and II of the Bill. We believe that industry is entitled to know where it stands on the information it provides to the authority within a relatively short period. There is provision for the Secretary of State to change this if the noble Lord's fears are confirmed. But at this stage we consider that 14 days is reasonable for an authority to determine whether or not information is commercially sensitive and should be withheld from the register.
Finally, related Amendment No. 122A seeks to provide powers for the Secretary of State to change the period for which the commercially confidential information remains confidential without the need for the licensee to reapply. This four-year period was the subject of extensive consultation and it was generally agreed that four years struck the right balance between those who wanted a longer period and those who wanted a shorter period. We do not believe that it is necessary to provide powers for the Secretary of State to change the period.
Thus, to summarise, we are content to accept Amendments Nos. 120F and 121. I hope that I have succeeded in persuading the House not to accept the remainder.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down can he answer a brief question about Amendment No. 120F? I noted that he said that he was not prepared to accept Amendment No. 120G for the reason that even a statement to the effect that there was an entry which had been excluded from the register could be prejudicial to national security.
Under Amendment No. 120F what kind of information can be included in the statement? Can he give an assurance that it will not be such as could prejudice the confidentiality of the commercial information which is sought to be concealed?
It seems to me that in some circumstances, when one is dealing with secret processes which involve the existence of certain by-products and effluents, the mere fact that they exist can tell a scientist skilled in the art that such and such a process is taking place and therefore the commercial consequences that might follow. That of itself could be prejudicial. It seems to be adopting a slightly higher test under Amendment No. 120E than under Amendment No. 120F. I believe that that could have dangers for the protection of commercial confidentiality.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can advise my noble friend that I understand that confidential information has been kept from the register. I hope that I have answered the particular point that he raised.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 120A to 120E not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 120F:
Page 70, line 35, at end insert:
("() Where information of any description is excluded from any register by virtue of section 65 below, a statement shall be entered in the register indicating the existence of information of that description.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Exclusion from registers of certain confidential information]:
[Amendment No. 120G not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 72, line 18, leave out ("enforcing").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 122 and 122A not moved.]
Clause 66 [Annual reports]:
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 67 [Functions of Secretary of State and appointment etc. of inspectors]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 68 [Powers of entry etc. of inspectors]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 125 to 127:
Page 74, line 32, after ("treated") insert (", kept").
Page 74, line 35, after ("treated") insert (", kept").
Page 74, line 37, after ("treatment") insert (", keeping").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move these amendments on behalf of my noble friend. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 130, 131, 272 and 273. Amendments Nos. 125, 126 and 127 are drafting amendments which clarify that inspectors' powers of entry extend to premises used for the storage of waste, such as transfer stations.
Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 are drafting amendments to make the Secretary of State's default powers under Clause 71 more effective. They allow him to vary or revoke any order he makes and to include such other incidental and supplementary provisions in an order as he considers appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 272 and 273 allow the Secretary of State's default power orders, and orders made under Schedule 3 in respect of the statutory nuisance functions of local authorities, to be made without the need for statutory instruments. That is because in these cases default orders are made in respect of a particular authority and are not legislative in their nature or context, but are addressed to a particular case or problem. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 70 [Obtaining of information from persons and authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 71 [Default powers of Secretary of State]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:

383
Page 78, line 46, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State may by order vary or revoke any order previously made by him under this section.").
Page 79, line 7, at end insert:
("() Any order under this section may include such incidental, supplemental and transitional provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72 [Appeals and other provisions relating to legal proceedings and civil liability]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 79, line 36, after ("deposited") insert ("in or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 132 which amends the drafting of this subsection on civil liability for the criminal dumping of waste to make it consistent with the wording of Clause 32 where the related offence is described.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Meaning of "fit and proper person"]:
[Amendment No. 132A not moved.]
Clause 76 [Transition from Control of Pollution Act 1974 to this Part]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 82, line 44, at end insert ("and "relevant appointed day for licences" shall be construed accordingly;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, 140, 274, 275, 278, and 280 to 282.
Amendments Nos. 133 to 137 and 140 bring together some rather disparate features of the Bill in Clause 76, which deals with the transitional arrangements from the Control of Pollution Act to this Bill. Rather than deal with them in numerical order I shall attempt to explain where the different groups fit into the grand order of things.
First, Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 and the last paragraph of Amendment No. 136 (labelled (2B)) address a problem highlighted in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who was erroneously assured that the existing provisions in Clause 49 for the modification of plans applied equally to plans prepared under the Control of Pollution Act. They do not, and I apologise to the noble Lord in his absence for misleading him, but I thank him for tabling the amendment at that time which drew the omission to our attention, if somewhat belatedly. The last paragraph of Amendment No. 136 puts right the mistake. It provides that existing plans under the 1974 Act shall become plans under this Bill, and subject to the new provisions of the Bill. Since there will now be two sets of "relevant appointed days" under this transitional clause, it is also necessary to distinguish between those for plans and those for licences which are already in the clause.
Secondly, the part of Amendment No. 136 labelled (2A) allows authorities to continue to operate their own facilities under a resolution of council—that is, under Section 11 of the Control of Pollution Act—until such time as their LAWDC is set up with a full licence or they may have privatised their sites.
Without this amendment authorities would be committing an offence under Clause 32(1) by disposing of waste without a waste management licence.
Thirdly, Amendments Nos. 137 and 140 allow the Secretary of State flexibility in imposing the requirements in Clause 50 that a waste disposal authority shall not dispose of waste except through arrangements made with a waste disposal contractor. I hope that this rather long explanation of this rather complex group of amendments has assisted your Lordships. Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 make the repeal of enactments under Schedule 16 subject to the provisions of Clause 76 (Part II: Waste), Schedule 11 (Part VII: NCC) and any notes in Schedule 16 itself which deal with transitional arrangements.
Amendments Nos. 278 and 280 are deregulatory amendments. Amendment No. 281, in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch reinstate certain sections of Part II of the Control of Pollution Act which were erroneously deleted in the present drafting of Schedule 16 to the Bill.
Amendment No. 282 paves the way for the subsequent repeal of a transitional provision allowing the NCC to be a statutory consultee on waste licences until its successor bodies take over its functions. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether it is given to mere mortals to intervene in the grand order of things, as described by the noble Earl. However, I wish to comment on Amendment No. 140, over which he passed relatively quickly—perhaps it is not quite so grand. Its implication is that the Secretary of State has the power to set such dates as he wishes in introducing compulsory competitive tendering for waste disposal. We understand that he will use the power only when there is a reluctance on the part of waste disposal authorities to achieve the creation of LAWDCs. It is an open-ended power, as the amendment is drafted, which in effect extends the operation of the 1988 Act. I am far from convinced that it is right to extend that Act under cover of what is only a minor amendment to the Bill.
It means that compulsory competitive tendering could be introduced in staggered dates. Noble Lords who took part in the debate on the 1988 Act will recall that the schedule of implementation of compulsory competitive tendering was specified in great detail by the Government and was a matter of considerable argument. The Government were determined to ensure that different local authorities introduced compulsory competitive tendering for different services on a staggered basis over a period of time. If the Government felt it necessary to be so precise in 1988, why are they now giving the Secretary of State a free hand to introduce such dates as he wishes? I do not find that a happy situation. It is not consistent with the approach taken by the Government only two years ago. I fear that it will result in discrimination against those local authority departments which wish to tender for the work and in favour of the private

385
sector. I hope that in winding up the Minister can tell the House precisely how the power will be used and the kind of timetables that he expects the LAWDCs and the waste disposal authorities to operate.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for inserting into the Bill the provision which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was assured existed. The matter has now been put right. I am under the impression that I should do much better if I stayed away from this place and concessions would be given right, left and centre.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I shall answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in particular those referring to Amendment No. 140. I shall endeavour to assure him that we are still about the grand order of things. I shall also deal with Amendment No. 137. Both amendments allow the Secretary of State to specify the date by which an authority must arrange for the disposal of its waste to a contractor by competitive tender. They allow him to specify different dates for each authority if appropriate. That allows the introduction of competitive tendering to be tailored to the individual circumstances of each authority. It also ensures that there is no scope for authorities to obstruct the introduction of competition through delaying tactics and the formation of their LAWDC.
However, the primary purpose is the introduction of competition to the waste disposal activities of the authorities. Furthermore, the amendment achieves flexibility, which is to the benefit of the authorities. It allows the date to be fixed in negotiation with the authority. It does not have any connection with the 1988 Act at all. It deals only with LAWDCs. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sees that we are still about the grand order of things.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 134 to 137:
Page 82, leave out line 45 and insert:
(" "existing disposal plan" means a plan under section 2 of the 1974 Act subsisting on the day appointed under section 154(3) below for the repeal of that section and "relevant appointed day for plans" shall be construed accordingly;").
Page 83, line 5, after ("day") insert ("for licences").
Page 83, line 8, at end insert:
("(2A) The restriction imposed by section 32(1) above shall not apply in relation to land occupied by an existing disposal authority for which a resolution of the authority subsists under section 11 of the 1974 Act on the relevant appointed day for licences until the following date, that is to say—

(a) in the case of an authority which transfers the relevant part of its undertaking in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act, the date which is the vesting date for that authority; and

(b) in any other case, the date on which the authority transfers, or ceases itself to carry on, the relevant part of its undertaking or ceases to provide places at which and plant and equipment by means of which controlled waste can be disposed of or deposited for the purposes of disposal.

(2B) Any existing disposal plan of an existing disposal authority shall, on and after the relevant appointed day for plans, be treated as the plan of that authority under section 49
386
above and that section shall accordingly have effect as if references in it to "the plan" included the existing disposal plan of that authority.
(2C) Subsection (2B) above applies to Scotland and, for the purposes of that application, "existing disposal authority" means any authority constituted as a disposal authority for any area before the day appointed for this section to come into force and "that authority" means the waste disposal authority for that area under section 30(2) above.").
Page 83, line 9, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 138 and 139:
Page 83, line 17, leave out from ("which") to ("the") in line 19.
Page 83, line 21, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 83, line 28, at end insert:
("(3A) The Secretary of State may, as respects any existing disposal authority, direct that the restriction imposed by section 50(1) above shall not apply in the case of that authority until such date as he specifies in the direction and where he does so paragraph (a) of subsection (3) above shall not apply and paragraph (b) shall be read as referring to the date so specified.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 141:
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
(Register of incidents at sea
.—(1) In section 33(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (investigations of marine accidents) there shall be inserted—

"(c) any accident involving the entry of harmful substances into the sea from a ship or a ship's boat, whether the substances are contained within the ship, within a package in or on that ship or otherwise."

(2) For the purposes of section 33(2) (c) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 an investigation may be made into, and regulations made under section 33(4) of that Act may extend to, any accident that occurs anywhere at sea within United Kingdom controlled waters.
(3) Regulations made under section 33(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act shall prescribe the matters to be included in a report made by a ship's master or owner about an accident involving the entry of harmful substances into the sea and in particular require information to be provided as to—

(a) the description of the harmful substances involved including the correct technical name of those substances,

(b) the quantities, concentrations and likely conditions of harmful substances that have entered the sea,

(c) where relevant, a description of the packaging and identifying marks, and

(d) the name of the consignor, consignee and manufacturer of the harmful substances.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish and maintain available for public inspection free of charge at reasonable hours a register containing a copy of any report made about any accident involving the entry of harmful substances into the sea in accordance with regulations made under section 33(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.
(5) For the purposes of this section and section (Duty to notify cargoes of harmful substances.) below "harmful substances" shall be defined in accordance with Article 2(2) of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 143. These amendments call for a register of incidents at sea and a duty of notification of all cargoes of harmful substances. It adds to Section 33 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which refers to marine accidents investigated by the chief inspector of marine accidents, a clear stipulation that all accidents involving harmful substances within United Kingdom controlled waters should be examined.
The Merchant Shipping Act allows for reports on accidents to be conducted but this amendment specifies that the report must include the nature of the harmful substance, the quantity of the substance, its destination and the origin of the substance. The amendment further imposes on the Secretary of State a clear duty to publish and make freely available on request reports on the entry of harmful substances into the sea.
I believe that everybody in this House agrees that we have every reason to be concerned about what is happening to our sea and coastline and that clear publicly available information is required. A register of accidents stating when and where chemicals are lost overboard should meet that requirement.
I vividly remember noxious chemicals being washed up in the Compton Bay area of the Isle of Wight when I was a Member there some five or six years ago. That caused a great deal of anxiety and it cost the local authority a lot of money to deal with that. I am sure that many colleagues who live in coastal areas will know of similar incidents. I am sorry to say that that situation is not improving but getting worse.
As recently as 22nd June 1989 my colleague in the other place, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, was told in an official Answer that the department—and I assume that it was the Department of Trade and Industry—kept no figures relating to the losses of dangerous chemicals in British waters. Up to 10 per cent. of cargoes carried by commercial vessels in the North Sea are classified as hazardous.
We believe that reports are needed containing the background information. Amendment No. 143 promotes that by calling on the owner and master to notify the Secretary of State of any harmful substance which a ship is carrying. This amendment vests responsibility in the mechanisms established by the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. That Act, which deals with, among other things, licensing for deposits and incineration at sea enables the Secretary of State to appoint officers with a power to request information as to lost substances, to request a ship to stop and powers to detain a ship if there is reason to suspect that that ship is carrying materials which are to be deposited or incinerated at sea. The amendment seeks to employ that structure when it is suspected that a ship is carrying hazardous chemicals. The same people would have authority to ensure that notification of carrying hazardous materials is reported to the Secretary of State.
I am aware that there was a somewhat truncated debate on this subject in Committee in the other place. The answer given was really not adequate. I suspect
388
that the answer which I shall be given this evening will be along the same lines, although I hope that it will be rather fuller. On a Bill concerned with environmental protection, surely mention should be made in the Bill of the problems affecting our coastline and how we shall deal with that.
Mr. David Trippier, the Minister in the other place, for whom I have considerable respect, said that sufficient powers to investigate accidents or hazardous incidents that might lead to environmental damage are already contained in the merchant shipping regulations of 1989. I certainly agree that it is extremely important that we use international maritime organisations to enable the Bill to work effectively. Nevertheless, we are entitled to more than the answer given when the point was raised at that time.
The Minister went on to say that the proposals for retrieval operations were not acceptable in their present form and that the Ministry was considering them further. Having experienced some of the oil spillages and such like, I would say "Amen" to that.
This is a probing amendment, but it is a subject of great importance. Even if I am out of court in attempting to suggest that this type of provision should be written into the Bill, there should be more comment about it in this particular measure. People will look to the Bill for protection from these incidents happening around the coastline. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This is a very important subject. Regulations are already in place which require reports of incidents concerning the actual or potential loss into the sea of dangerous goods, harmful substances and marine pollutants. The form of these reports has been agreed internationally through the International Maritime Organisation and there is no need to duplicate these requirements.
Sufficient powers to investigate accidents or hazardous incidents which lead or might lead to environmental damage are already contained in the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989. Such enquiries would be based on evidence from the ship's manifest and would not rely solely on statements from the master or owners, whose source of information is unlikely to be more detailed or accurate.
The Government entirely accept the necessity of providing the public with full and prompt information about marine pollution incidents. We do not believe that a public register is an effective means of conveying that information. Marine pollution incidents are often fast moving affairs with information changing hourly, if not daily. As a means of providing the public with up-to-date information about a current incident, a register would be virtually useless. Instead it is necessary to rely on the responsible authorities—the Department of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, in the case of goods washed ashore, county councils— to publicise the implications of marine pollution incidents. Their

389
track record in keeping the public informed is good. Noble Lords may recall that full details were available to the media during the recent "Perentis" case.
In addition, as a source of record of coastal oil pollution incidents, the Department of Transport commissioned the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea to maintain an annual survey of incidents as reported by local authorities. The Department of the Environment intends to commission a similar survey of hazardous goods washed ashore. For all these reasons this proposed clause, despite its excellent intentions, would be unproductive and I must ask noble Lords not to support it.
Amendment No. 143 would require the master and owner of a ship carrying harmful substances in United Kingdom controlled waters to provide the Secretary of State with certain information about the cargo, and persons appointed under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 will have power to ensure that that is done.
The Government cannot accept that amendment. The carriage of harmful substances by ships can be effectively regulated only by international conventions dealing with marine safety and pollution prevention. There are international requirements for the prior notification of goods entering ports. New rules by the International Maritime Organisation would extend that requirement to goods leaving port.
In the United Kingdom the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act requires that notification be made to the harbour authority concerned. The provisions of the Act are monitored by marine surveyors of the Department of Transport and the statutory harbour authorities. Ships entering or leaving United Kingdom ports are thus subject to the regime envisaged by the amendment. It is not possible to subject ships on innocent passage—just passing through the United Kingdom territorial waters—to such a reporting procedure. In any case there would be no way of enforcing the legislation. However, they are obliged by the merchant shipping Acts and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships to report to the nearest coastal state when harmful substances are lost overboard.
I do not for one moment underestimate the importance of this matter but I hope that the noble Lord will understand that regulations exist and that we are all concerned about their enforcement.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, that was a much fuller reply than that given to my colleague during the Committee stage in another place, and I am grateful for it. I was in error in referring to the Department of Trade and Industry because I now realise that responsibility was moved from the Department of Trade to the Department of Transport and that that is where it now lies.
I appreciate the answer given by the Minister and I do realise the problems and difficulties. There is still a complicated situation when an accident involving hazardous chemicals occurs and where various
390
departments and legislation are concerned. However, it will be of assistance that the position will be recorded in the Official Report and I repeat my gratitude to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 134 [Power to prohibit or restrict the importation or exportation of waste]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 135, line 40, at end insert:
"((cc) confer powers corresponding to those conferred by section 68(3) above;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides powers of entry to inspectors to enforce the controls on the import and export of waste.
Regulations under this clause would be largely about documentation notifications of waste movements, consents given and documents accompanying waste movements. Authorities might very well need physically to inspect waste consignments and take samples for analysis, not least to check on the accuracy of any documents such as descriptions of the waste imported or exported. It is therefore essential that waste regulation authority officers have powers to enter premises and to take other action on sites where waste is kept or dealt with.
The draft as it now stands does not extend these powers to waste imports and exports. The necessary powers are available in Part II and this amendment seeks to extend those powers to this section in Part VIII. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. I42A:
Page 136, line 5, at end insert:
("(5A) Regulations made under subsection (5) (c) above in respect of imported waste shall include the requirement that before waste is imported, a certified analysis of the waste, accompanied by two sealed examples, and including a statement of its chemical composition and of the presence of any environmentally damaging contaminants, has been received by the waste regulation authority concerned from the relevant regulatory authority in the country of origin.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by again referring briefly to the events which caused us to raise this matter in Committee, because the problem has not gone away since we debated these matters in June this year. The specific case arises from the import by Wath Recycling of Wath upon Dearne in Rotherham of what was supposed to be a consignment of 500 tonnes of copper sludge. The company had taken a trial amount of three tonnes and found that it could reclaim the copper from the copper sludge. It therefore agreed to take the total consignment from the United States.
The copper sludge was delivered in open containers by ship and by rail. When the first batch arrived at the company's premises it was kept indoors as required by the company's site licence but it was found to have a horrible smell. A further 140 tonnes arrived at Leeds in the same form and that smelled nasty, too. The company therefore began to suspect that the deliveries

391
were not the same material as the test consignment. A check was made and the material was found to contain highly hazardous chemicals for which there should have been safety precautions during its handling. The company put the copper sludge into sealed containers and it remains in this country, some of it on the company's premises and some of it on British Rail premises in Leeds.
Since that happened in early 1989 nobody has been able to resolve the problem under existing law. HMIP and the Department of the Environment have been endeavouring to bring the two parties together—that is, the waste producer and the waste recycling company—but they have not succeeded in doing so and no solution has been found.
Wath Recycling has attempted to take civil action against the United States company but it has been ruled that the matter is not subject to British law. The company is therefore being forced to take court proceedings in the United States but it is not known how long that will take to be achieved and, in any case, it appears that these chemicals which are considered by this country to be highly toxic are not considered to be highly toxic by the United States. In addition, although in this country they would have to be properly labelled they are not required to be properly labelled in the United States.
The Bill does not really deal with this problem. Although I readily acknowledge that there are improvements to the clause, it does not deal with the problem because it does not relate to material that comes in before the Bill is passed and becomes an Act. Even if the material is brought in and found to be contaminated with unacceptable material and the recipient refuses to accept it on to his premises, there will be a stranded material, as there is now, with no one willing to take responsibility for it or to deal with it. It may well be that the local authority will have to deal with the cost of the safe disposal.
On reflection I do not think that what we are proposing in this amendment goes as far as it should. Ideally, the legislation should have been made retrospective. Bonds should have been required from the overseas waste producers before the material was accepted in this country. Nevertheless, the proposals put forward here are modest and realistic. They should be incorporated into the Bill. As the amendment says, there should be
"a certified analysis of the waste, accompanied by two sealed examples, and including a statement of its chemical composition and of the presence of any environmentally damaging contaminants".
The amendment also states that the information and materials should be
"received from the relevant regulatory authority in the country of origin".
At this hour of the night I shall not go in detail into the different ways of importing waste under the transfrontier shipment regulations of 1988. Suffice it to say that there is some protection when material is not non-ferrous material for reclamation. There is supposed to be information about the waste producer, the country of origin and the chemical characteristics.
392
However, there is no real protection if the material is not what it is declared to be, as was the case in the incident I have described.
When waste is declared to be non-ferrous metal waste imported for reclamation, there is no requirement for prior notification. There is no requirement other than that the uniform document must be posted before the consignment is made. That document is simply inadequate for the purposes of proper control. The Wath incident is continuing. It has not been resolved despite the best efforts of the HMIP and the Department of the Environment. Those concerned are not convinced that the Bill will deal with the problem. Through this amendment we are proposing a modest improvement in the Bill in the hope that at least future imports of this kind will not take place. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to include in regulations under Clause 134 a requirement that the regulatory authority in the country of origin should provide to our regulatory authority an analysis and samples of the waste before it is shipped.
There is no significant difference between us on the aims of this amendment. It is our firm intention that any regulations made under this clause would deal with the need for analysis and sampling. But I must repeat what was said in Committee, that the decisions on the content of our regulations must await the outcome of negotiations in Brussels on the Community-wide regulations which will ratify the Basle Convention on the international movement of waste for all Community members simultaneously. This will replace the provisions of the transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste directives. This regulation will automatically become law in this country and we must guard against any possibility that national law is incompatible with it.
We must at this stage therefore be very careful that the Secretary of State's hands are not tied by an over-rigorous itemisation of things to be covered by the regulations under Clause 134 which may vary slightly in detail from the requirements of the EC regulation. I repeat that it is our firm intention that such analysis should be carried out. We will be pressing in negotiations that the EC regulation applies to all international shipments of waste, including non-hazardous waste, and that analyses and samples are submitted to the relevant authority before shipment takes place. However, we believe that such samples should be provided by the producer of the waste, not the regulation authority in the country of origin. We believe that the producer should be responsible for the waste and that he should be the one to take it back if the analysis proves to be wrong. We shall be pressing for this to be a feature of the EC regulation.
It may well be that the Secretary of State will not need to make regulations under Clause 134 because a European Community regulation will provide all the controls that are needed. On the other hand, the Secretary of State may need to make United Kingdom regulations because additional controls are necessary. Either way, the submission of samples should be a

393
feature of the system but it is important that any United Kingdom regulations on the matter are compatible with regulations that will come from the European Community regulations. In particular, we would not wish that the duty to provide the samples should lie with the waste regulation authority in the country of origin, as set out in the amendment.
I agree with the noble Lord that shipments such as those he described need to be controlled. This clause sets out the means for control, but I can only re-emphasise that the regulations to be provided through the Community will implement the Basle Convention. This will bind both the United Kingdom and the United States. I can also assure the noble Lord that the department has taken an active part in attempting to achieve agreement between the parties. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to put one or two questions to him. First, can he be more precise about the timetable for the European Community regulations to which he referred? Secondly, if, as he says, the Government are pressing the Community for the sample to be produced by the waste producer rather than by the regulatory authority, does that not mean that the waste producer will have to be inspected in producing that sample in order to ensure that it is an honest sample?
Waste products are not homogeneous. In the nature of the beast, one does not find the same thing in every barrel or in every container. It would be all too easy for a sample offered by the producer not to reflect the content of the consignment as a whole. The waste regulatory authority, provided it is an honest, properly established waste regulatory authority, would be able to ensure that the sample was truly representative of the consignment. Can the noble Lord answer that question? It is important that we should know that the Government are behaving correctly in negotiations taking place with the Community.
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's second question on the samples to be produced by the producer. The requirement would be that the producer should provide accurate samples. If they turned out not to be so, he would be required to take them back. That is what we are aiming for.
The noble Lord asked about the timetable. All I can say is that negotiations are to begin soon and a draft has been produced by the European Commission.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I find both those answers unsatisfactory. He cannot do anything about the timetable.
As to the actions the Government are taking in the negotiations, the whole force of the example of Wath Recycling is that it is not possible to get the company to take the consignment back. It was not properly described. Nobody knows whether the three tones
394
which were supplied as a test consignment were honourably supplied or were dishonourably supplied. The samples did not represent the content of the consignment. The difficulty has not been resolved despite the efforts of HMIP and of the department. The consignment is still there. It has not been taken back by the US producer. In those circumstances, with Wath still hanging over us, so to speak, how can the noble Lord argue that it is enough to have an unrepresentative sample and to rely on the possibility of its being taken back?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the intention is that when there is a new European Community law this situation will be provided for and it will be possible to insist that waste in these circumstances (where it has been so described) will be taken back by the exporting producer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is all very well in a situation where the exporting producer is a member of the European Community. However, what happens when that is not the case? Will the same provision apply if the waste comes from Zaire, Bangladesh or Venezuela?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the answer is yes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot continue to ask questions because this is Report stage. However, I do not believe that the European Community has the power to enforce these regulations if they are supposed to apply to Zaire, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Cuba or wherever else it may be. I am not satisfied with the answers which have been given and if it were not for the late hour I should certainly seek the opinion of the House on the matter. It is an issue to which I may return on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Clause 135 [Powers to obtain information about potentially harmful substances]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 144 to 147:
Page 137, leave out line 36.
Page 137, leave out line 41.
Page 137, line 42, at end insert ("and the Food Safety Act 1990.").
Page 202, leave out lines 43 and 44.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments. —
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.

KNOW-HOW FUND FOR POLAND: PROJECTS SUPPORTED
KNOW-HOW FUND FOR POLAND: PROJECTS SUPPORTED
  KNOW-HOW FUNDS
  KNOW-HOW FUNDS
  CATHEDRALS: FUNDING OF REPAIRS
  CATHEDRALS: FUNDING OF REPAIRS
  COUNTRYSIDE INITIATIVES
  COUNTRYSIDE INITIATIVES
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN STORAGE: SAFETY
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN STORAGE: SAFETY
  FISHERY PROTECTION
  FISHERY PROTECTION