I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments No. 4 to 6 and No. 285.

The amendments in this group are drafting and technical amendments, and I am sure that the House will not wish me to dwell on them, although I shall be happy to answer any questions hon. Members may wish to ask. While on my feet, I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on her recent election to the shadow Cabinet.

I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a few questions about the Lords amendments, which I understand were intended to tighten up the original wording of the Bill. The reason for my questions is that these clauses have serious implications for certain aspects of British industry.

One of the great problems which often arises with such legislation is that clauses refer to regulations which may be drawn up by the Government. I am sure that the House is aware that regulations made long after the original legislation are often lightly debated in the early hours of the morning, and British industry wakes up to discover that a statutory instrument has been passed and it is not even aware of its significance.

For example, statutory instrument No. 1159, which was issued just before the summer recess last year, stated that any trade effluent discharges which raise the concentration of prescribed substances above background level meant that sector fell under integrated pollution control even if the presence of prescribed substances was occasional or intermittent. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members are aware that I act as a consultant to the British Leather Confederation which is very worried about the implications of these clauses and the regulations that will flow from them.

As I understand it, with the absence of any de minimis exemption, small companies with as few as a dozen workers could come under full integrated pollution control, with all the associated monitoring and registration costs.

My hon. Friend the Minister has always given a sympathetic hearing to the leather industry, and I remand him that that industry is now presented with real problems. For example, under the proposed regulations to which these clauses relate, the industry could find that, although a firm is not responsible for polluting a waterway, because skins were treated with some sort of insecticide, it could unknowingly affect the water supply and be prosecuted.

I therefore hope, that my hon. Friend will take note of the industry's very real anxieties and those of other related industries, and will give me an assurance that, when the regulations are drawn up, they will take the interests of British industry into account—especially the interests of many small firms, which could become hopelessly enmeshed in bureaucracy and might never be able to afford the measures needed to avoid prosecution under the Act when it becomes law.

I am concerned about the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). I have had the opportunity, which I valued, of meeting both my hon. Friend and representatives of the British Leather Confederation. The difficulty is that tanneries discharge an obnoxious substance that affects the water. It is included among the red list substances that are referred to in part I.

I can give my hon. Friend two assurances. First, the Government do not intend to introduce legislation that would result in these companies having their backs against the wall. We hope to reach an agreement with the industry. We want Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to sit down with representatives of the industry. I would not accept the introduction of such legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that assurance.

Secondly, the views of the British Leather Confederation and the Chemical Industries Association have been consistent throughout. They welcome the main thrust of what we are trying to achieve in part I: higher standards for the control of emissions and for those polluting processes that affect the land, water and air. They also want the regulations to be fair. I have repeatedly given assurances about those matters to them.

The new regulations for the British Leather Confederation would not be introduced before 1996. I am giving small and medium sized companies a period of between three and five years after Royal Assent to comply with the new regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied that we are concerned and that he will accept my assurance that we intend continually to review the matter.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 11, 15, 21 to 23, 35 to 38, 41, 323 to 326 and 142.

Both Lords amendment No. 2 and the other Lords amendments are technical and consequential.

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient also to consider the following amendments: Lords amendment No. 13 and the Government motion to disagree; Lords amendment No. 14 and amendments (a) to (d) thereto, and the Government motion to disagree.

As the Opposition have tabled several amendments to Lords amendment No. 14, I fully respect their wish that there should be a debate on this issue, which involves the Valdez principle. In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Opposition to open the debate so that I have to speak only once.

I am grateful to the Minister for providing the Opposition with the opportunity to outline their case. If he listens to the debate, I hope that he will reconsider the Government's position on Lords amendment No. 14, which was added to the Bill in the other place after a constructive debate. Ministers in the other place did not answer the case put forward by our colleagues there.

If the Government insist on rejecting the Valdez principle, their rejection of it will be even further proof that they are not using the Bill to improve environmental protection and that they are continuing to waste the opportunity that the legislation could provide. We have said all along that the title "Environmental Protection Bill" is very grand, but the contents of the Bill do not match its title.

The fact that the amendment is incorporated in part I, which deals with integrated pollution control, is significant. Integrated pollution control is a principle that the Opposition have supported throughout consideration of the Bill—in Committee, on report and in another place. The problem is that the Government have taken a good principle and implemented it in a second rate way. They have not laid down with sufficient clarity the principles on which authorisation should be based. They have never said that they are ambitious about implementing integrated pollution control. They refer to changing the structure of applications instead of to the imposition of new and progressively tighter controls on industry.

The Government's attitude led the Opposition in the other place to table the amendment that incorporates the Valdez principle. We are keen that that principle should remain part of the legislation. We want to take the matter further and use part I to establish an environmental protection agency to co-ordinate all the policy aspects that ought to be taken into account when considering integrated pollution control and all other aspects of environmental protection.

I remind the House of the Valdez principle. It is strange that the Minister should seek to reject it. It is not only Labour politicians in this country who have put forward such an amendment. The Valdez principle was established in the first place by United States investors, for ethical reasons. That group of people will grow in number and influence. I hope that the principle that the group advocates—that companies should carry out environmental audits—will be taken on board by the Government. The Opposition regret that they have not yet done so.

According to the Valdez principle, certain other policy aspects ought to be taken into account when considering integrated pollution control. The ones that are mentioned specifically in Lords amendment No. 14 are

"(a) The minimisation of pollution to environmental media;

(b) the protection of the biosphere;

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

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

(e) the conservation of energy;

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

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

(h) the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation …

(i) the disclosure of adequate information …

(j) the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits".

I am at a loss to understand to which of those principles the Government can object. The principle to which the Government may object is that which involves energy conservation. When the matter was debated in Committee, we pressed the Government to a Division on incorporating energy conservation in the integrated pollution control conditions. The Secretary of State was present on that occasion but even he voted against it.

The Government's record on energy conservation is absolutely pathetic. The Government's White Paper states:

"Energy efficiency is the cheapest and quickest way of combating the threat of global warming."

However, the same Government and the same Ministers have significantly cut the energy efficiency budget. They say that energy efficiency ought to improve in the future. In real terms, the energy efficiency budget was halved between 1986–87 and 1989–90. The real advances that could have been made on energy efficiency have not been made. That may be one reason why the Government object to the amendment.

Hon. Members received an interesting letter today from the CBI on the amendments that the Opposition have tabled and the inclusion of the Valdez principle in the Bill. The CBI seems to be panicking enormously about the prospects of including such measures as I have mentioned. The minimal brief that it sent shows that it does not seem to understand the implications of the amendment passed by the other place.

6 pm

The fact that the CBI sent that note to hon. Members asking them to reject the Valdez principle, and the fact that the Minister will ask us to reject it, shows that Ministers and industry have far too negative an attitude on environmental protection as simply a cost rather than an opportunity. It would be in the interests of industry to push it to have industrial environmental audits and energy efficiency programmes. The Minister knows that many problems could be alleviated if industry changed its attitude, and environmental audits are certainly one opportunity.

The hon. Lady is being uncharacteristically unfair and is giving the House the impression that perhaps part I of the Bill was the idea of the Opposition. She cannot be allowed to get away with that, because it is perfectly clear that part I, which we put together and which, admittedly, was amended from time to time by the Opposition, is intended to raise standards of pollution control. It was entirely the idea of the Government and it is entirely to our credit that the legislation is before the House. It certainly will not be easy for industry to comply with the new regulations. Is the hon. Lady trying to deny that?

The Minister is mistaken. I did not claim credit for the ideas behind the Bill. We can claim credit for trying to widen the implementation of IPC to ensure that industry takes on board all the needs of environmental protection rather than the narrow definition that the Government are giving it. If the Government persist in trying to implement IPC in this limited way, they will not be serving the best interests of industry. If they continue to say to industry, "All environmental protection is a great cost, and that is the end of the story," we shall not get industry to move in the direction that we want. If British industry does not take on board environmental considerations, it will be left behind because industries and companies elsewhere are becoming the leaders in many areas of clean technology. If the Government continue to send out the wrong messages, we shall slip further behind, instensifying the economic problems that we face.

I am sorry that the Minister persisted in insisting that there should be a negative approach to those problems. The concept behind IPC is an integrated approach to pollution control. Where better than the Bill, therefore, to introduce all the other considerations that I have mentioned, from energy conservation to environmental auditing? If the Minister persists in talking down industry and talking about the problems of environmental legislation rather than the opportunities, he will not be doing industry any favours, and he certainly will not be doing the environment any favours.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on her election. I hope that it is a sign that I, too, will benefit from having responsibility for this subject. When she left the House temporarily, I inherited her office. It may therefore be a good place to do one's apprenticeship on the way up the environment-political ladder.

The Lords amendment was sponsored jointly in the other place by the Labour party and Liberal Democrats, and my noble friend Lord Ross spoke in support of it for my party. I do not therefore need to elaborate on the view that we hold—that it is entirely appropriate to set out the specific principles for defining integrated pollution control.

The list, which has come to be known as the Valdez principles, sets out directions that the Secretary of State should give when permission or authorisation is sought. As the Minister will readily concede, the directions are general and cover subject matters rather than specific requirements. For example, they relate to the requirement that the conditions develop

"the sustainable use of natural resources".

I should have thought that he would happily welcome that principle. They require that the consequences of the conditions are

"the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste."

I should have thought that that was entirely acceptable.

I am aware, for example, that if waste disposal were environmentally best achieved by incineration, the consumption of energy would be higher than if another method of waste disposal were used. In absolute terms, therefore, one could not say that that method was the most energy efficient. That, however, is not inconsistent with the principle, in as much as it can be achieved, of "the conservation of energy", as set out in paragraph (e) of Lords amendment No. 14.

I join the hon. Member for Dewsbury in saying that the CBI's fears, which are set out briefly, appear to relate to a misunderstanding of the principles of Lords amendment No. 14. The CBI asked the House to reject the amendment for three main reasons: that the principles impose on industry

"absolute liability for damage, compulsory environmental audits and total disclosure of information."

The proposal on absolute liability for damage is that there should be an undertaking of adequate—I underline "adequate"—provision for compensation for damage

"caused by the person authorised, or his processes or products."

It is an entirely proper principle that somebody who pollutes is required to pay adequate compensation.

The proposal on compulsory environmental audits reads:

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

I should have thought that the CBI would welcome that. It should be built into the practice of industry and business that it periodically assesses, audits and monitors the effectiveness of its work. I do not see that Government or industry could have any objection to that. Yes, it may cost more, but the price of the environment is worth paying, and Parliament should be saying to industry and individuals, "You should pay it."

The principle on total disclosure of information—I remind the House that the amendment received sufficient support in the other place for it to have been passed only a couple of weeks ago—is that there should be

"the disclosure of adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies on matters relevant to the environment and health and safety".

That is not total disclosure of information, but adequate information to employees and enforcement agencies on relevant matters.

Other provisions in the Bill protect proper confidentiality, and we shall debate amendments on that in a few minutes. I do not think that the CBI is right to say that, if the Lords amendment is passed, it would detract from the need to bring integrated pollution control into operation as smoothly and quickly as possible. The fact that there has not been enormous consultation on the principles is a less strong point because, first, there is international precedent for the desirability of the principles being incorporated into enabling legislation and, secondly, because the principles are consistent with an enabling part of the Bill. I ask the Minister to say that they do not tie his hands.

The amendments deal with the Labour party's proposal for an environmental protection agency. The hon. Member for Dewsbury may have read our document, which was produced this autumn a little before her document, and even before the Government's, and was entitled "What Price Our Planet?" In it, we reiterated the view, which my colleagues have enunciated for several years, that we support the idea of an Environmental Protection Agency. My only reason for not adding my name and those of others to the Labour amendment is that that would have been unfair to the hon. Lady and her colleagues. The details in one Labour amendment about the agency's functions are slightly different from ours. Given that the amendment was on the amendment paper, I thought that it was a sufficient peg on which to hang our support for the principle, without being tied to every word of the Labour party's proposal.

We think that there should be a Department of Environmental Protection, which would take some of the functions of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Trade and Industry and even the Foreign and Commonwealth Office where it deals with international environmental issues. We believe that there should be an environmental protection agency, bringing together the functions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and of the National Rivers Authority, funded by but independent of the Government and backed up by a national environmental information law centre.

I want to give one example showing why such a system would be important, and today is an appropriate day to do so. As we all know, the Secretary of State for the Environment is not here because he is in Luxembourg at the meeting of European Community Environment Ministers before he goes on to Geneva and the world conference on climate change. The most controversial item on today's agenda is the limit to be set on CO₂ emissions. The Government have made clear their policy. They believe that we should seek to achieve a limit at present levels by the year 2005. As we all know, their reason is that there will then be more emissions and first a subsequent reduction, so in 15 years we shall only be back to where we are now.

The Labour party argues that this level could be achieved by the year 2000 and prays in aid other countries that have achieved that. As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats argued for a better principle, for a tougher target. We argue—this is not unsupported by precedent elsewhere—that there should be a 30 per cent. cut in CO₂ emissions by the year 2005, a 50 per cent. cut by the year 2015 and a 55 per cent. cut by the year 2050. We believe that that is achievable by a range of policies—taxing pollution, energy efficiency, renewable technology, more public transport and less private transport and a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels. The Minister is unwilling to accept that as a target—indeed, he would give the Secretary of State a bit of trouble if he did so, given that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to persuade the European Community differently in Luxembourg.

The benefit of having an independent environmental protection agency is that we would have a body that could say with authority to whichever party was in government, "We believe that this is the best advice." If an environmental protection agency existed now, it would find that the Government's environmental policy was inadequate. I may be wrong, but that is suggested by the evidence.

The argument for an independent agency of Government to advise the Government on environmental protection has never been stronger. I hope that the time will come when the Government accept that all environmental wisdom does not lie with them. We have never believed that it lies with politicians and, increasingly, politicians are aware that their views have been behind those of experts. I hope that even if the Minister does not accept the amendment for an environmental protection agency, he will say that the Government have not rejected the idea. The hon. Gentleman would find such a body a helpful ally, certainly for the environment.

Listening to the claims and counter-claims of the Labour party and the Liberal party one could be forgiven for forgetting that it was the incoming Conservative Government in 1970 who first established a Department of the Environment and the present Government who have brought forward this large Bill—the first serious attempt to deal with a range of environmental problems. [Interruption.] The interventions from the Labour Front Bench remind me that the 1974 Labour Government took public transport away from the overall responsibility of the Department of the Environment and we have been regretting the consequences for many years.

Clause 2 refers to "Prescribed processes and prescribed substances". The one prescribed substance which, sadly, is eliminated from consideration under the clause is carbon monoxide emitted by the internal combustion engine. I hope that that omission will be rectified in future legislation.

I am conscious of the fact that one or two of my colleagues may not agree with me about pollution emanating from aircraft, but aviation fuel, particularly aviation exhaust, is an increasing problem in small pockets of the countryside around airports. I hope that, in due course, whether under the aegis of an environmental protection agency or through another organisation, transport matters will be brought back under the general heading of the environment and that, sooner or later, some Government will bite the bullet and include emissions from the internal combustion engine and from aircraft in the term "prescribed substance".

Lords amendment No. 14 deals with the Valdez principles. I do not understand why the Government object to these nine or 10 principles which are to be incorporated as conditions to be considered in the granting of licences. They are all reasonable targets for all industries, obliging them to minimise pollution and waste, to protect the biosphere, to conserve energy, to conduct periodic environmental audits and so on. These principles are at the heart of the Bill. Without them, what is the Bill about?

Our amendment deals with setting up an environmental protection agency. In many environmental issues, Britain is 10 years behind Germany, Sweden, the United States and so on. Through the EPA, the functions carried out by the NRA, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Nature Conservancy Council and the environmental work of local authorities would all come under one umbrella organisation.

The National Rivers Authority involves the right kind of regional infrastructure and could provide the basis for such a powerful environmental organisation. Working independently of the Government, the body would monitor the environment, conduct research, advise the Government on new legislation and enforce existing legislation. It is a disappointing fact that, although the NRA is a powerful body in many respects, the enforcement of its work in connection with river pollution is not nearly strong enough.

Meanwhile, the pollution inspectorate is plagued by all sorts of problems. For example, it is in charge of air pollution, in respect of which there have been only nine prosecutions in the past 10 years. Those figures speak for themselves and clearly illustrate the limited extent to which the relevant provisions are enforced. An environmental protection agency responsible for enforcement is therefore desperately needed.

Amendment (b) calls for the creation of a Minister for Environmental Protection. At the moment, the full range of responsibilities falls to the Department of the Environment, which also has to deal with the community charge, housing, local government finance and so on. The Department has far too many responsibilities and they are too disparate for one Secretary of State to deal with them. The establishment of such a post would constitute a recognition of the importance of green issues and the environment. A Minister for Environmental Protection should take over some of the responsibilities of the Departments of Energy, Transport and Industry and especially of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The amendments would greatly strengthen the Bill. Having served on the Committee, and having been involved at various stages in the consideration of the Bill, I believe that at present it is a weak Bill. When one considers that the Government have been in power for 10 years and that this is their first major Bill dealing with the environment, it is remarkably weak. For example, it involves hardly any financial commitment, although we know that the problem of acid rain will take billions of pounds to tackle, as will the problems of sewage and our beaches. The curbing of the greenhouse effect through energy efficiency measures will also require billions of pounds worth of investment.

Instead of tackling those major problems, the Bill deals mainly with peripheral issues. The Opposition acknowledge that, under parts I and II, structures are being set up for integrated pollution control and the better regulation of toxic waste, but nevertheless believe that the amendments would greatly strengthen the Bill.

I should like my hon. Friend the Minister seriously to consider the Opposition's two main proposals. The Valdez principles are important principles and important policy objectives, and I should like the Government to endorse them as acceptable principles and objectives to follow. Whether they are proper subject matter to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament, and whether they are capable of enforcement, is an entirely different matter. Personally, I do not believe that, if we state them in the Bill, as the amendment proposes, we shall be doing anything more than state a series of platitudes. We shall diminish their importance if we list them as proposed, because they cannot be made effective in terms of legislation. Nevertheless, I repeat that I should like my hon. Friend to confirm that the Government endorse those objectives and would like them to inform our view of the problems of the environment and environmental pollution.

The amendment would also require the establishment of an environmental protection agency. I do not think that I need say a great deal about that on this occasion. I have spoken about it extensively and I have also written about it. The House will know that, in its toxic waste report, the Select Committee on the Environment put forward the concept—before it became part of the policy of any of the political parties. I support such a concept because. at present, the way in which we deal with environmental monitoring, auditing, regulation and control is far too fragmented and leaves a great deal to be desired.

Having said that, I agree that we cannot rush the establishment of an environmental protection agency through at the tail end of our proceedings on this Bill, as the Opposition propose. I should like the Minister to tell us that the Government do not dismiss out of hand the establishment of such an agency, that the Department will continue to work out the details of how the matter can best be legislated for and that, eventually, we will introduce legislation that will establish a proper agency of the kind envisaged by the Select Committee.

Are the Valdez principles merely platitudes, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) suggested, or are they practical guidelines that should govern our conduct towards the environment? That is the question before the Minister, and I hope that he will respond in detail on the Government's attitude. If the Government reject the principles as laid down in detail in the amendment, we should be told, why they are doing so and, what they propose to put in their place. How will the good will expressed on both sides of the House be turned into practical measures? The amendments deserve a detailed response from the Government, because they provide both a theoretical and a practical basis for tackling environmental problems in the long term.

The amendments are intended to probe the seriousness of the Government's commitment to genuine environmental improvement on a practical basis and founded on internationally agreed general principles. In implementing the Valdez principles, the Government would be following what is now becoming accepted international practice. If they reject them, they will be stepping out of line, and I should like to know why. The Valdez principles are internationally agreed and accepted, and the amendments are merely an attempt to integrate United Kingdom practice in that international context.

The principles relate directly to industry and industrial practice and attempt to integrate them into good environmental systems and practices. I doubt whether many people in this country would object to the protection of the biosphere or the sustainable use of natural resources or the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste or the wise use of energy. I doubt whether they would object to environmental risk reduction or the marketing of safe products and services or to damage compensation—that is very much of live issue—or to the disclosure of incidents or to the appointment of an environmental director. That should become the industrial norm, as should environmental assessment and annual audits in industry.

In a practical way, the amendments would bring industry into consideration and allow it positively to contribute to an improved environment. I hope that increasingly, environmental or compliance auditing will become standard practice in industry and that it will be accepted as a natural and important part of business practice.

The amendments are a taste of the future. Sooner or later, they will be accepted, out of common sense and fairness towards the environment. I hope that they will be accepted sooner rather than later, and that that is what the Minister will say in his response.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that he would consider these matters in relation to the publication of the White Paper on the environment, and the agency was, indeed, mentioned in the White Paper.

Another matter that is relevant to the amendments is the experience that we have now gained in relation to the National Rivers Authority—in many ways, the first stage in the creation of an environmental protection agency. In that respect, I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said: we must not do everything too quickly.

We have now had some experience of the NRA, and we can see how it is operating. I do not fully agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), who referred to the NRA's weakness. Over the past few months, the opposite has been the case. There have been a number of prosecutions, most notably against various oil companies in the north-west, which have proved highly effective and have acted as a good discipline against those worst polluters of the environment.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the first prosecution took place on the very day that the authority came into operation? It was certainly quick off the mark.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. That proves that the NRA is effective.

We should not stand still. We should move quickly towards the creation of a fully fledged EPA to cover subjects other than water pollution. We are already entering slightly dangerous territory in which there is a demarcation dispute between HMIP matters and NRA matters. We must progress towards a situation in which we have a fully fledged Environmental Protection Agency which is separate from the Government. In that respect, I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about the need to remove some of the expertise from local and national Government and place it in an environmental protection agency.

Unless we make progress relatively quickly, we will be duplicating a lot of work on the environment. There will be little departments at district and county level and also within the Department of the Environment dealing with exactly the same matters which one EPA could deal with. With a lack of environmental expertise in the first place, there is a danger that we might spread that expertise too thinly. We might not achieve a firm view of the policy that we should adopt in this country towards the different aspects of pollution control, which must increase in importance in future.

I was quite amused by the reference by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to his temporary location in the office that was formerly occupied by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). A wonderful thought flashed through my mind: if it is as lucky for him as it has been for her, he might find himself in a shadow Cabinet. My next thought was that he is already in a shadow Cabinet. It may not be a very big shadow Cabinet, but he must be a member of one. In fact, I suppose all the Liberal Members must be members of such a Cabinet.

Not quite all.

The hon. Gentleman must enlighten me further about that important issue later.

If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey were to be a member of the Cabinet of Her Majesty's Government, in the unlikely event of the Liberal party ever taking office, it is safe for me to say from the Dispatch Box that the hon. Gentleman can say any darn thing he likes about pollution control target dates for CO, emissions, because they are unlikely to be delivered. Although I hugely enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's catalogue of proposals about how the Liberal party would introduce stabilisation and then the reduction of CO, levels, he should have included the proposals incorporated in the alternative White Paper put forward by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

The Labour party's alternative White Paper refers to stabilisation by the year 2000. At present CO₂ levels, all the research, particularly that undertaken by the Department of Energy, shows that it will be impossible for that to be achieved unless there were nil economic growth —no Opposition Member mentioned that—and half the coal mines were closed. How on earth the Labour party can square that with Arthur Scargill's National Union of Mineworkers stretches credulity to breaking point, but it might be hugely amusing.

I assume that the Minister, like the Secretary of State, has seen our alternative to the Government's White Paper, which we published in September. The Minister must not ask me to defend the Labour party's fossil fuel policy, which I believe prevents the circle from being squared with regard to stabilisation by the year 2000. The Minister will be aware from reports in the press today and over the weekend that the target of stabilisation by the year 2000 is easily achievable, because the Government's advice that there would be a great expansion of CO₂ emissions by the year 2005 is inaccurate. The projection was an overestimate.

Therefore, the Labour party target is not difficult, although we believe that it is inadequate. The Minister should reconsider. I would not be content with resting on the laurels of the Labour party as a sufficient backstop as a second choice for the Government's policy.

I would not rest on the laurels of the Labour party, and I do not want to be taken down this side street. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want knowingly to mislead the House. With regard to his earlier comments about the presence in Luxembourg of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, no hon. Member should assume that any member state has made the target level as categorically clear as this Government have. That is disquietening. When I attended Council of Ministers meetings in Europe recently, I found to my horror that people are saying what they think they might be able to achieve, but are not prepared to sign up to that while others say that there is an aim or a target, but no commitment. The difference is that we have a clear commitment. When this Government sign any document, we deliver. We are respected for doing that, and I wish that that applied to many other countries.

Not about dumping in the North sea.

I do not know about that, but I look forward to debating the matter tomorrow.

There is not much between the Opposition and the Government on how tough integrated pollution control should be. The measures enshrined in part I of the Bill were taken from recommendations made by the Royal Commission on environmental protection, which have been applauded and welcomed.

The only question that arises is: how tough should those measures be? Although I was interested to hear Opposition Members say that they should be tougher or very tough, I wonder whether they have squared that view with some of their trade union colleagues or those sponsored by them who might have something different to say if it meant that, in the rush to achieve the much higher standards enshrined in the legislation, thousands of people were to be laid off work. That is the difficulty which the Government must address. We have struck a balance between economic development and environmental enhancement. I am entirely content with that.

With regard to jobs, the future and the future of industry, does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, who said over the weekend:

"British business has been losing opportunities in European markets by failing to take a lead on the environment"?

Surely the Secretary of State is acknowledging that jobs can follow environmental protection.

I could not agree more. In trying to achieve the balance between economic development and environmental enhancement, many opportunities arise as a result of our being the pathfinders and trail blazers within Europe on integrated pollution control. If anyone doubts that, I can state that we have been asked to send a secondee from the Department of the Environment to Europe to help put together a European directive with which we can easily comply, but which many other countries will have to run very quickly to keep abreast of.

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Indeed, we lead the world on water consultancy, and a great deal of business can be done on that, not least in central and eastern Europe now that those areas have been emancipated.

We have debated this issue several times in the past in Standing Committee; however, I must address the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members—not least ray hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi)—with regard to the structural alterations affecting Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. From what was said in the White Paper, it must now be clear that we did not consider the time right to think of further major structural changes to the system, such as the amalgamiation of the existing regulatory bodies.

The National Rivers Authority has been in existence for a year; Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has not existed for much longer, and recieves considerable new functions in the Bill. There has been a period of dramatic change. However, we were careful to make it clear in the White Paper that, although the Government have concluded that the case is insufficient

"to outweigh the disadvantages of further administrative upheaval at just the time when the new organisations are getting into their stride",

we certainly had it in mind to move towards establishing a regulatory body on the lines of the environmental protection agency at some stage. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who addressed the same issue.

Does the Minister consider that that would require legislation?

I think that it would require legislation. At this stage, it is not clear to anyone—least of all the hon. Gentleman and me—whether the new regulatory body should have, for example, a waste-regulation function. Such matters must be addressed. The commitment that I—along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—have given constantly, on the Floor of the House and outside, that HMIP will have the necessary resources to do the job is the most important undertaking that I can repeat in this debate.

Let me say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury that I find, what has happened to the EPA in America very interesting. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) constantly refers to the EPA; he did so in Committee as well, and I understand why. The EPA, which is completely separated from the federal system in the United States, has now been brought back into the federal system, and its administrator Bill Reilley has been appointed as a Cabinet Minister—at least, I hope that his position will be confirmed shortly, as I have the highest regard for him.

I wonder how that appointment would be viewed in this country. The hon. Member for Carmarthen—and perhaps even I—might view it as a case of someone being bought off if it had happened in the United Kingdom. My point, however, is that the EPA has now been brought back into the main stream of Government; my hon. Friends who sit on the distinguished Select Comittee know that to be the case. I would not always pray in aid the EPA in the United States; I think that we must look to something rather different.

I can understand why Lords amendments Nos. 3, 13 and 14 were accepted in the other place. The main amendment that we are addressing here sets out a number of principles concerning the Valdez principles, which on the face of it are as unexceptionable as motherhood and apple pie. However, the question is whether it is appropriate to enshrine them in legislation aimed at a system of pollution control.

Lords amendment No. 14 gives effect to nine out of 10 of what have become known as the Valdez principles, which were prepared after the Exxon Valdez oil spill of April 1989. One might think, so far so good; however, putting the principles into legislation goes against the founding aims of those who prepared them. The aim of the group that prepared the principles was

"to create a voluntary mechanism of corporate self-governance with the goals of sustaining our fragile environment for future generations."

In America, it is recognised by the most environmentally responsible individuals, companies and institutions that the Valdez principles en bloc are not feasible—as they stand—for companies. When the principles were discussed in the United Kingdom at a seminar arranged by the Green Alliance, members of environmental and other voluntary groups and the ethical investment community, it was agreed that the implications of the advent of the single market, proposals for eco-labelling, developments in public access to environmental information and the development of environmental auditing in the United Kingdom, all needed to be explored, as they would affect the applicability of the Valdez approach in the United Kingdom. In other words, environmental groups in the United Kingdom would not agree that the Valdez principles should be imported lock, stock and barrel as a United Kingdom policy objective, let alone enshrined in legislation. So much for the overview.

How does the main amendment in this group affect the systems of integrated pollution control and air pollution control? I believe that they are confusing, contradictory and incongruous; in short, the amendment is an almighty spanner in the sophisticated works of the two pollution control systems established in this part of the Bill. Let us examine each of the "sub-headings" of clause 7(4)(a) in turn. There is nothing wrong with paragraph (a), which concerns the minimisation of pollution as a general statement of intent, except that it does not belong here.

We have already provided for something much more specific in the Bill: clause 7(2) states:

"the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost will be used",

not to minimise pollution of the environment, but to prevent releases of specific substances to the environment. Only if releases cannot be prevented will they be minimised. In all cases, BATN EEC—best available technique not entailing extra cost—must be used to render all releases harmless. That is not good enough.

6.45 pm

Let us look at another "sub-heading". The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) specifically asked me to address what was wrong with the Valdez principles. The principles state that we will

"make sustainable use of renewable natural resources."

The amendment that I have been talking about goes further: it would require an operator of a process to develop the sustainable use of natural resources. I must confess to the hon. Gentleman that I do not know what that means, and I think that most hon. Members would have enormous difficulty in defining it.

I am not being in any way clever, but let us pose some questions. Does it mean that a timber treatment plant operator would have to cultivate his own forest, or that a chemical operator would have to conduct research into wildlife habitats? The amendment is nonsense—and I could go on down the list. Its implementation would become a bureaucratic nightmare.

Rather than go on down the list, I must address a point made by at least two Opposition Members concerning the green audit, including the hon. Members for Angus, East and for Southwark and Bermondsey. It was the point to which the noble Lord McIntosh addressed a number of his remarks in the upper House when introducing the amendment that we are considering.

Environmental auditing as a principle is good. The United Kingdom environmental groups accept and support it, as I do myself. For heaven's sake, we have spent a great deal of time and a number of pages in the White Paper making clear what we believe about environmental auditing. I am delighted to say that this is a movement that is growing rapidly. The hon. Member for Angus, East said as much, and we should all welcome it. However, we stop short of making it mandatory. We do not regard it as helpful for the Government to be prescriptive about when or how techniques should be used.

The development of environmental audits is most assured if individual companies are encouraged to adapt the techniquies best suited to their particular circumstances. The voluntary nature of the techniques, as it has been developed by business, has encouraged a positive, objective and self-critical approach. That technique is still developing, and I do not wish to see it stop at industry; I want to see it developed throughout local authorities, and I think that I would carry the whole House with me on that point.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the strictures of the official Opposition, or indeed, members of the Liberal party. I must end, however, by completely rejecting the remarks made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen. He suggested that the Government's record on environmental protection or enhancement was bad; in fact, it is outstandingly good—and compared to that of the Labour party, it exceeds all expectations. The last time that a Labour Government were in power—and that is difficult to remember—they did not even introduce part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974: what a disgrace.

Now the Labour party is talking about renationalising the water industry, which frankly it cannot afford to do. It cannot possibly afford to replace the £28 billion programme that has been made available only because of privatisation. It sickens me to my back teeth that, when they were last in power, Labour Members constantly cut support to water authorities, even when they were nationalised. No one believes that Labour is the party of the environment. Labour Members would have to look to all my colleagues as those who believe in environmental enhancement and an improvement in the quality of life.

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 40.

The key task in this exercise appears to be to keep one's eye on the amendment paper and to make sure that a crucial moment is not missed.

The amendments relate to the consequence for confidentiality of a determination under clause 22. Amendment No. 39 would add an implication that, if no determination had been made about a matter of confidentiality within 14 days, the information would automatically fall to be treated as confidential.

The logic of that is to make local authorities hurry up to determine whether something should be confidential. Does the Minister agree that 14 days is a tight deadline and, as he will appreciate in a local authority's cycle, often too tight a deadline? What will be the consequences if a local authority cannot meet a deadline? The best parallel that I can think of on the hoof is the allowed period in which to determine a planning application. If it is not determined by a deadline, it automatically goes to appeal for non-determination. Local authorities will often not be able to make a determination, or will not do so, and the consequence is that something will be held to be private when it should be public. If local authority staff are either incompetent or do not deal with the matter, or if they try to deal with it inadequately, we may end up with the wrong decision. That makes for bad law.

We should consider giving a longer time to local authorities so that the best principles of open local government are applied and we do not make confidential what should not be confidential. On environmental matters, the principle should be the availability of the maximum information possible. I am troubled that it is an over-restrictive timetable and that it will result either in wrong decisions or in secret conclusions. Has the Minister a comment in response?

The hon. Gentleman would be right if we had left the Bill in that way. Amendment No. 40 in particular deals with his concern. A variety of suggested times was trailed in Standing Committee. We discussed who will say whether the time is adequate. From memory, 14 days was just about in the middle. We thought that it was adequate. If we are wrong and the hon. Gentleman turns out to be right, amendment No. 40 enables that time scale to be altered by order. That is fair enough. It enables the hon. Gentleman's point to be met, and his concern can now be abated.

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 43 and 44.

This issue was debated at length in Committee—in probably one of the best debates that I have ever known in Committee—and it was also debated on Report. On that occasion, the Minister was not prepared to accept our amendment that would have set up regional waste regulation authorities. I told the Minister that I thought that it would not be too long before he came back with a proposal on waste regulation authorities if he was in Government long enough to be able to do so.

This proposal comes from the Environment Select Committee report, which clearly recommended that the poacher and gamekeeper roles should be separated, and that, if we were serious about environmental protection, we should have separate regulation authorities. We recognise that the Government's compromise is a somewhat timid step along the lines that we would wish. We shall not oppose the proposal because it establishes the right of voluntary groupings in the original instance. It reserves the Secretary of State's right ultimately to establish regional waste regulation authorities.

The Labour party and the Environment Select Committee are serious in their proposals for environmental protection and associated problems. The question is whether the Government are as serious as we are. As has been said many times, we believe that waste regulation authorities, together with the National Rivers Authority, which has already been established, would ultimately form the basis of an environmental protection agency. The voluntary groupings can provide a stronger role for waste disposal plans, with proper integration of those plans at regional level. They can also provide a joint approach to licensing and enforcement policies, regional consultation on the regulation of hazardous wastes and better deployment of specialist resources across the authorities. Those are the reasons why we believe that we should have gone a step further and established the waste regulation authorities now.

Nevertheless, the Government are moving in the right direction. We hope that the voluntary groupings will succeed. I have no doubt that it will not be too long before waste regulation authorities are established to ensure proper and adequate control of private and public waste disposal and the best possible protection of our environment.

It has been interesting to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). We have worked together on the Select Committee on the Environment on these concepts. I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered those issues. Normally, I hesitate to make party political points on environmental issues because I like to see the Select Committee on the Environment working unanimously and as an all-party Committee—but my understanding was that it was Conservative members of the Committee who tabled amendments for the formation of regional waste authorities, but that they felt unable to proceed because they were not given the assurances, help and support that they required from the hon. Member for Burnley, who was also on that Committee——

It is unusual for me not to agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. However, he will find that I was a signatory to those amendments in Committee and that I supported them at every stage. I told the hon. Gentleman's colleagues that if they put their amendments to the vote, the Labour members of the Committee would support both amendments. The first debate convinced my hon. Friends that we were right in our approach. As I said, it was an extremely good debate and it was as a result of that debate that many of my hon. Friends became convinced that the Select Committee report was the correct course to follow.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent throughout and that the position has been somewhat misreported to me. However, I know that my colleagues on the Committee were unhappy at that stage because they could not carry the matter in the way that they had hoped. Nevertheless, that is all water under the bridge.

This has been a difficult issue between the Select Committee and the Government. When we first suggested the proposal, it was rejected by the Government mainly because they did not want to enter into confrontations with the local authorities once again or to embark on another reorganisation of the local authorities having done so very recently. That was one of the matters that hindered the Government when dealing with the issue. Incidentally, I understood that the local authorities had been making strong recommendations to friends of the hon. Member for Burnley and that that was another difficulty in making progress with the matter in Committee.

Be that as it may, I welcome the fact that the Government have now recognised that the Select Committee, which spent a great deal of time and took a great deal of evidence on the way in which the present structures of the waste authorities were failing the country, concluded that such a system could be operated adequately only on a regional basis. We cited the London Waste Regulation Authority as an example of what could and should be done.

It is a pity that the Government are simply taking reserve powers to create regional waste authorities and that they are not going the whole hog. I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley that, as night follows day, sooner or later we shall see the creation of regional waste authorities. We shall then have reached what the Select Committee, on an all-party basis, set out to advise the Government to do.

My hon. Friends and I are not in any way against regional waste authorities. There has been much debate and discussion on that and I recognise the work done by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and his Committee, and others.

However, I should like to highlight one concern, which is that the amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to create new authorities. I hope that he or his successor will recognise the views of local government. If the Secretary of State is given this additional power, there is a danger that the plans that have been voluntarily agreed between local authorities in a particular area will suddenly be intervened upon by the Secretary of State, who could decide to create a new authority irrespective of the wishes of those local authorities.

I believe that the whole process will be a matter of logic; that logic will dictate economic viability, and that geography and economic viability will dictate the right size for a regulation authority, which may well be regional. However, I hope that that conclusion will be endorsed by a Government decision only if it is the view of the current authorities at a lower level. I warn against any over-hasty intervention from the Government that might disrupt what would otherwise be the preferred approach of the democratically elected local councils.

It kills me to say this, but I agree with every single word that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has just said. We have already been listening to the local authorities with regard to the regulatory function and waste disposal.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for reminding Opposition Members that a number of people in some local authorities, not least in some Labour-controlled authorities, hold different views on what should be done in terms of this matter from the parliamentary Labour party—not surprisingly.

I think that what I am hearing, from both the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, are two cheers for what we are doing. I am satisfied with that for the moment because, when I was responding to the debate in Committee, I did not think that I should get even one.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Lords amendment No. 93 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto; Nos. 94, 96, 97, 109, 110 and amendment (a) thereto.

Although I should have pressed the amendments if the Government had been willing to accept them, we do not intend to divide the House because we are aware of the time. In all seriousness, the Government should be prepared to accept these modest amendments. If they do not, they will restrict the intention to move forward with recycling. I do not believe that the Government would want to admit that they are not in favour of recycling, so they should be prepared to support the two amendments.

The amendments refer to clause 46, which deals with

"Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collected."

The clause also deals with recycling of waste by waste collection authorities. Subsection (6) states:

"A waste collection authority may, … provide plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste".

It should be noted that by implication that clearly identifies such functions as a function of the collection rather than the disposal authority. However, subsection (7) states:

"Subsection (6) above does not apply to an authority which is also a waste disposal authority; … the authority may make arrangements with a waste disposal contractor" to undertake the recycling function.

In Committee and on Report, we discussed on several occasions the varying division between regulation, collection and disposal authorities. No one system is common throughout the country. I certainly do not intend to go through those arguments again, but it is because of the variation in functions that the anomaly in the Bill would create a nonsense. The Government would not wish that to be the case.

The restrictions in subsection (7) will apply to metropolitan and local authorities, which are not part of a statutory waste disposal authority and to the Welsh district authorities. In each of those cases, the authority will be a collection and a disposal authority at the same time. In addition, in London there are four statutory disposal authorities, which may be abolished under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1985.

In January 1989, the Government consulted on the role and functions of waste disposal authorities. When their decision on the results of the consultation were announced, they stated:

"the four statutory disposal authorities in London will be abolished when their assets and liabilities are transferred to local authority waste disposal companies".

Since then the Government said:

"We have therefore agreed to reconsider the case for each of the authorities to remain in being"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 1990, Vol. 522, c. 1274.]

Indeed, they did so, and it was reported in the Official Report of the other place of 23 October. Of course, that is not sufficient to guarantee the position. The Government should be prepared to move in the direction that we seek.

7.15 pm

The amendment also has the support of Liberal Democrat Members, who will express their support in a few moments. The problem remains that a waste collection authority which is, or could become, a waste disposal authority as well, will be prevented from undertaking recycling activities. It is no good the Government supporting the principle of recycling during hours of debate in Committee, on Report and in another place if they do not deal with an anomaly in their Bill—which will become an Act in a few days—which in certain instances will physically prevent recycling from taking place. That is why we tabled the amendments. They are an attempt to ameliorate the effects of clause 46(7).

The Government have attempted to clarify which activities would be permissible. Despite the fact that the Bill refers to plant equipment sorting and baling, the Government have suggested that the provision of bottle banks will be allowed. However, it is doubted whether the Government's assertion that a bottle bank is a receptacle and, by implication, not a piece of equipment for sorting waste, is a rational distinction that could survive the test of law. Not only is a wide range of other banks used for collecting different types of waste but often other associated specialist equipment could by no means be defined as a receptacle.

I could give details of various activities in the London boroughs affecting Richmond, Westminster, Sutton and Havering. The same could be instanced for the Welsh districts. However, it would be wrong to take up the time of the House by going through those details. The Bill creates a problem and the Government should accept the modest change made by the amendments.

The Government must also recognise—they still fail to do so—that recycling is not a lucrative exercise. Even schemes that are considered economically successful have resulted from considerable pump-priming by local authorities, and it was necessary to plough back any income to maintain the viability of such schemes. As the Bill is drafted, an authority could engage contractors to do the work. Any proposal would inevitably entail additional costs or variations in the scheme, which would reduce its viability.

There is an important principle here, and if time permitted we should press the amendments. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept that the Bill creates an anomaly that he would not want. He would not wish to bar any London authority or Welsh district authority, which was both a collection and a disposal authority, from dealing with recycling when other authorities are encouraged to undertake recycling. That would be nonsense. If the Minister is sensible, he will see the logic of the amendments and accept them.

According to the rules of the House, I begin by declaring an interest in metal recycling, which enables me to speak with some authority on the industry and, I hope, to point the Government in the right direction under the heading of recycling arrangements. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, it is with a certain sense of disappointment that, despite being at my most persuasive, I have not managed to persuade him that the right way forward would be to separate scrap metal from the general definition of waste. He continues to insist that that is what it is and that that is how it should be treated. In fairness, I must admit that he has left his door open to me by giving me an assurance that, if I can find a metal recycling merchant who is finding it difficult to have his premises licensed, my hon. Friend will discuss the matter with me. If I submit full details to him, he will investigate the matter. As yet, I have not come up with a scrap-metal dealer who is encountering such difficulties, expecially as local authorities have only just started to license scrap-metal yards.

There are some difficulties about the length of time for which local authorities are prepared to issue licenses. Sadly, some are not prepared to issue them beyond five years, but the investment required for the efficient recycling of metal, whether ferrous or non-ferrous, means that more than five years is needed in which to recoup such investment. The industry is, however, living with that problem.

At the moment, George Lyons and Co. of Liverpool is having trouble with an unco-operative Merseyside development corporation. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and I will be able to sort that out without resorting to ministerial help. It is important to remember that most local authorities are only now beginning to embark on the licensing of their scrapyards.

On the definition of waste, we must look for assistance where we can. Perhaps the Confederation of British Industry has come to our rescue because, in its documents on the business agenda for Europe in the 1990s, it seeks for a clear distinction to be made between waste and secondary raw material so that recycling is promoted and resources are better utilised.

As I said in many speeches to the Committee on this subject, I understand that the European Community may be issuing a directive on inter-European movement of waste. Exemptions to regulations may result from that directive based on the category of waste to be moved across frontiers. The categories of waste are as follows: white, grey and black. Obviously, the most hazardous material falls into the black category. Such categorisation would benefit the movement of ferrous scrap, which would obviously come in the white group. Eurofer, the European equivalent of the British Scrap Federation, has had assurances from the Commission that it is aware of the problems created by calling scrap metal waste and it has agreed that ferrous scrap could be removed from the category of waste.

If ferrous scrap is removed from the category of waste or is classified differently by the Commission, will my hon. Friend the Minister preserve our Euro-credentials and follow suit in the United Kingdom? In common with many other hon. Members, I dislike the expression "a level playing field", but the United Kingdom reclamation industry needs reassurance that it will be treated the same as the European reclamation industry. It is disconcerting to record that the licensing of scrapyards has not yet begun in Denmark, Belgium, France or Italy—Lord only knows what is happening in Ireland. What is required is fair competition across Europe.

There are some other specific matters on which I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend. Will representatives of the reclamation industry be consulted about any future changes to the licensing procedure? When Lord Hesketh was at the Department of the Environment he gave me and other members of the industry the reassurance that such consultation would take place. Now that Lord Hesketh has moved on, I should be glad if my hon. Friend could reaffirm that commitment. Consultation on the annual costs and criteria for the licensing of scrap yards would also be enormously reassuring. Similarly, it would be reassuring to have discussions with the Department of the Environment on the waste management paper concerning advice to local authorities on the procedures for licensing.

Lest the House should think otherwise, I want to emphasise that the reclamation industry does not in any way want to pollute or to irritate. It wants to set high standards and to ensure that their enforcement is practical and efficient. I am pleased to tell the House that two scrap-metal recyclers have been awarded the British quality standard award BS 5750 for setting a high standard in their own businesses. I believe that we owe a great deal to the scrap-metal industry and to farmers, who are probably the most active promoters of a clean environment.

There is some confusion over recycling credits and who shall get them from the county council in rural areas. Will the skip operator and the reclaimer obtain those credits or the district local authority, which, in many cases, is already charging for bottle banks and the like? Will those authorities be reimbursed for doing so, as well as being paid? Will the waste collection authority receive the credits?

It would be commendable and emotionally appealing if recycling credits were given to the boy scouts for collecting old drink tins or bottle tops or to a local women's institute for collecting waste paper—many of whom make a first-class job of it. If such functions are undertaken by a professional organisation, such as a refuse collector or a scrap-metal dealer, will it collect a recycling credit? After all, those organisations perform a commendable job. We also need clarification of exactly what a recycling credit is. Is it a cash payment? Is a credit note to be offset against some local authority charges or something else? Whatever it may be, it would be helpful to have some clarification.

There are other on-going problems that must be addressed. Firstly, will the reclamation industry be consulted on any enabling legislation as a result of the Bill? It should also be consulted about any changes that the Department of the Environment may want to introduce once the Bill is enacted. Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that the inspectors, or whoever, who follow the regulations to ensure that they are adhered to, all work to the same brief, regardless of their location? It is difficult for the industry if the inspectors in Liverpool are working to a different brief from that used in Guildford. I must insist that the cowboy operators do not profit at the expense of the legitimate trader.

Finally, I should like to put on record how much I have appreciated my hon. Friend's willingness to discuss these matters during the passage of the Bill and the ready way in which he has sought to familiarise himself with ferrous metal reclamation.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 110, which has been tabled by my hon. Friends and I, is extremely straightforward: it requires that those who carry out the recycling are paid for the process.

Our amendment relates to the new clause proposed by Lords amendment No. 110. It changes the option that there "may" be payment to the waste collection authority to a requirement that there "shall" be. I hope that the Minister will be favourably disposed towards that amendment.

I do not dissent greatly from the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), but he will not be surprised if I speak to another specific concern—one which I am sure the Minister expected that I should want to express. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has already mentioned the problem, which is now the subject of amendments tabled by the Labour party and my party. If a waste collection authority should become a waste disposal authority, it would be prevented from carrying out certain recycling.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues have received written representations on this matter and the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities was questioned about it at a recent conference. Concern about this matter is especially prevalent in authorities such as the London boroughs of Richmond and Sutton, which have taken the lead in recycling initiatives under the administration of my Liberal Democrat colleagues.

Richmond is a collection authority and also one of the constituent members of the west London waste authority—one of the four statutory London waste disposal authorities. I do not think that there is any party political doubt that that borough has been at the forefront of recycling activities. It operates a range of collection activities covering bottles, rags, cans, office waste paper, computer paper and commercial glass. There are many points around the borough for the collection of board, waste oil, plastic and so on. It has storage bays for recycling, which other boroughs also use. It is now investigating micro recycling centres. It has a lot of fairly sophisticated equipment either already commissioned or planned. It clearly has a sophisticated process for servicing the facilities and doing an extremely good job.

To take up the point of the hon. Member for Burnley, it would be invidious for a local authority to have to pay and make a loss on some environmental and recycling activities if, on the rare occasion when it was to make a profit—which it normally uses to encourage voluntary activity—it was to be prohibited from any activity.

7.30 pm

My colleagues in Richmond are worried that the Government's approach will mean that my colleagues will not be allowed to retain in house, organised by the local authority as opposed to contracted out, all the recycling initiatives which it is accepted have been among the best in the country.

The Sutton case is parallel. It is a collection authority and, as the Under-Secretary will know, it is also a disposal authority by virtue of being a member of the voluntary south London waste disposal joint committee. It has purchased vehicles for glass collection, put its in-house direct labour operation out to compulsory, competitive tender and won the contract. As a result, it has begun to programme a range of activities that require investment of money and officer time. It is equally concerned that that project is likely to be thwarted by the current trend of Government activity.

I expect that the Under-Secretary has seen the letter written to the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, dated 22 October, by the leader of Sutton borough council, Councillor Graham Tope. Councillor Tope asks a limited number of specific questions, which I shall repeat because, as far as I know, they have not yet been answered and go to the core of the issue. He asks whether it is the Minister's intention that the Bill will allow a waste collection authority that is also a waste disposal authority to provide and operate, either by direct labour or private contractor, a recycling facility and be in receipt of a rebate which will be a transfer from its waste disposal or waste collection account to a recycling account. It seems to the councillor, as it does to my colleagues and me, that that is an encouragement to be a good recycling authority. It is a perfectly proper activity.

What is intended to be the commercial, financial interaction between waste disposal authorities and waste collection authorities? What about commercial contractual commitments entered into, as at present, by local authorities, either with other local authorities to do their recycling for them, or with direct service organisations or private companies? Will they be allowed to go ahead and honour those or will they have penalties imposed on them if they do? Will there be a programme whereby waste collection authorities will have to invite tenders for the receipt of waste that they collect? How will they be able to carry out what they are presently doing without breach of contract?

I confirm the concerns that have also been taken up with Ministers by my colleagues in Richmond upon Thames. The Minister will be aware that my colleague, Lord Ezra, raised those matters in the other place in the debate only a week ago. There has been correspondence, including some from Lady Blatch, as the Under-Secretary of State responsible for such matters in the other place, and from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), to officers of the London borough of Richmond, but they do not address the fundamental concern. We have not yet had a reassurance that local authorities will be able, if they are in the constitutional position of being both collection and disposal authorities, to carry out in house the recycling activity that they have clearly done well and wish to carry on. There are all sorts of practical implications in that.

I hope that the Minister can be far more positive and will accept the amendment to Lords amendment No. 110. I hope that he will accept the amendment to Lords amendment No. 93 and say that, where recycling has been pioneered by good local authorities, they will be allowed to go on doing it and will not be forced by what I can only assume is an initial mistake to have recycling out of house, so that it is no longer an operation in which they can lead the local community and volunteer effort, and set an extremely good example that many other local authorities are willing and happy to follow.

While we are considering the statutory responsibilities and the question whether the amendment should read "may" or "shall"" it is possible to re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) talked about—the commercial recycling and reclamation, and the individual and voluntary groups. Obviously, they can mesh together. If we ever forget to emphasise how important it is for each of us to consider what we can do and try to ensure that those with commercial opportunities for selling and reclaiming products receive some response to what they do, whether they do it correctly or not, we shall not achieve the full spectrum of necessary activity.

I pay tribute to the mayoress of Cambridge. When she bought a plastic product packed in a container that stated that it was recyclable she tried to find out how it was recyclable and was told that at some future stage it might be possible to sort out different sorts of plastic and perhaps that form of plastic could be melted down and used. I regard that as offensive. We must start with current products that can be recycled, with voluntary help to overcome the transport and collection costs, as with aluminium and paper, and then move to the time when the value of waste paper is taken from £3 a tonne back to £30 a tonne and promote more commercial opportunity in collection and disposal.

My hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal to provide a focus for all the efforts, but when people consider the results of the legislation, they will remember the role of voluntary organisations and domestic households, as well as commercial premises.

I am a Member who recognises that world resources are finite and recycling has an important part to play. However, experience in my constituency during the past 18 months makes it clear that recycling has to be carried out within a framework of adequate and ongoing supervision and regulation. I recognise the need for the reclamation of metals. As a Member with a significant part of the British special steels industry in my constituency, I should be foolish not to do so.

I shall restrict my speech on the group of amendments to a local incident with which the Minister for the Environment and Countryside is familiar and to which he has devoted a fair amount of time and energy. About 18 months ago, a consignment of toxic waste, contained in a load of copper scrap, reached my constituency. The material was supposed to be uncontaminated, but after it had lain in the open for some time it was discovered to be contaminated by carcinogenic materials—what I described last year as a poisonous cocktail.

That incident has cost my local authority considerable sums in supervision. It has also had to bear the burden of anxiety felt throughout the local community. The saddest part is that the material was already in Britain and had been here for some weeks before the poison was discovered, which suggests that the regulations should be changed and that the role of the local authority and its capacity to meet the costs that it incurred should be enshrined in new legislation.

The Minister may care to offer his latest comments on the position, but 18 months later the material is still in my constituency. It is now contained in more than 2,700 drums and has been there for 12 months—heaven knows when it will go. While that material remains in my constituency, it is evidence of the inadequacy of regulation and the need for care and supervision to assist local authorities to ensure that their communities are protected. It may be that it was unwitting poisoning, although we cannot be sure until the court case is resolved in the United States. However, that incident provides adequate evidence to sustain continuing concern in the House. We want a commitment from Ministers that, if existing regulations prove inadequate and bring the risk of a repeat performance of that which has blighted my area, they will not hesitate to introduce amending legislation—which I believe will be necessary at an early stage.

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I am delighted that he is now speaking from the Front Bench; his presence there is long overdue.

I am concerned that we are endangering the legislation by making recycling less practical and more difficult, rather than easier. We should be encouraging recycling. There are two approaches to the problem—pre-collection sorting and post-collection sorting. Unfortunately, the legislation tends to put those two approaches in competition, rather than encouraging co-operation. Pre-collection sorting was pioneered in Huddersfield 10 years ago—I think that it was an Oxfam scheme—but, unfortunately, it ran into financial difficulties and ceased operation. More recently, Friends of the Earth, in co-operation with the Sheffield local authority, operated a recycling scheme.

Both schemes involved the householder separating his rubbish into four or five different piles and putting them into separate containers, which were then collected from the households. People in other authorities separate their rubbish, although the refuse collection service does not deal with separated items. The householders have to take them to bottle banks, waste paper collection points, tin can collection points and so on.

There are considerable attractions in the pre-sorting process. For example, it increases public awareness of how much is being thrown away and the value of those items. The scheme is cheap to operate because it relies on the householder to sort the rubbish. However, the scheme has disadvantages. It can be inefficient because some people will not go to the trouble of sorting their rubbish; the elderly and the disabled may find sorting difficult; and in tower blocks and flats there is often the difficulty of only one refuse chute for rubbish, so that it is difficult to sort it effectively.

Another problem is that, however hard one tries, a large proportion of rubbish is not sorted. A certain amount can be extracted, but it is difficult to extract and sort all the rubbish into reusable materials. The process can also be expensive. There are many examples of people who religiously take paper and bottles to collection points, but in fact they use more energy transporting the rubbish than is saved by recycling.

I suspect that the pre-sorting process causes problems for waste disposal authorities that have begun to develop post-sorting of refuse. The temptation is to take from the refuse the one or two valuable materials that will command a high price. That destroys the economics of sorting all the rubbish. That is why I disagree with the Liberal-Democrat amendment to replace the word "may" with "shall". If a collection authority is separating paper, bottles or any other materials in the rubbish that might otherwise go to landfill, it is doing a valuable service and should receive some remuneration to take account of the fact that it is reducing the amount of landfill. If a local authority sorts all the refuse in its depot, the pre-collection method that takes out the most valuable items—for example, aluminium and tin—may destroy the economics of that authority's attempt to recycle all the waste.

One disadvantage of post-collection sorting is that it does not impress upon the public the importance of the resources being used. It is unseen by the public, because it takes place in the waste disposal depot. The process can also be expensive, especially because of the capital costs of installing equipment to separate the rubbish. However, almost 100 per cent. recycling can be achieved. The Greater Manchester waste disposal authority is running an experimental scheme, and I understand that an authority in the west midlands also has a recycling contract.

Paper, tin, aluminium and different sorts of plastic can be extracted and, eventually, there is a residue of humus material that can be turned into an acceptable substitute for peat, which is environmentally attractive. If all that takes place, Iandfill can be avoided and there is a recycled use of the materials. The danger is that that approach can be destroyed if the pre-collection authority extracts one or two of the more valuable materials. That destroys the economic viability of the large plants that are intended to sort all the refuse.

7.45 pm

There needs to be a co-operative approach in any local authority area. The collection and disposal authorities should discuss whether pre-or post-collection is the most reasonable. They should make financial arrangements to take that into account. The Government also have a key role in that because, whether it is pre- or post-collection, the paramount question is what price can be commanded for the recycled materials. The Government should be doing much more to ensure guaranteed prices for recycled materials. They should increase the specifications, especially in Government purchasing, for the use of recycled materials.

The Government have made some progress in the use of recycled paper, but they could go much further. It is regrettable that, in other areas of Government purchasing, there is no requirement for the use of, for example, recycled glass. I ask the Minister to ensure that this legislation does not produce an artificial conflict between the collection and the disposal authorities. The Government must do as much as possible to ensure guaranteed prices, especially in a period when it appears that there will be a general slump in industrial activity. We must not destroy the impetus of the recycling industry.

The debate has echoed some of our discussions in Committee, and they were some of our best debates. There was an especially striking speech from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who, in an associated debate on packaging, brought to the Committee a shirt box containing a new shirt. He used that to show how the manufacturer could do without a great deal of the packaging, pins, labels and so on. It was an excellent prop.

In other debates, there were contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who impressed upon the Committee the fact that this country has a good record in reclamation and scrap reprocessing. He instigated a visit by me to a large and important scrap merchant in London which showed me what was happening on the ground. It also showed me the importance of doing nothing in the Bill that might impede the recovery of ferrous and other scrap.

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that we will continue closely to consult the relevant industry. My officials have already had preliminary discussions with the British Secondary Metals Association, and they will be happy to extend them to the British Scrap Federation. Those discussions will be most usefully held after we have issued a first draft of our licensing regulations and the associated guidance, so that there will be something definite on the table to discuss. Those notes and regulations will meet my hon. Friend's concern that different standards might apply in different parts of the country—and that is something we certainly want to avoid.

My hon. Friend mentioned the boundary transfer of waste. We are determined that regulations on an international or EC basis, although necessary, will not impede or inhibit the legitimate recycling trade. However, I repeat the point that I made in Committee, that we must not assume that all potentially recyclable waste is by definition non-hazardous.

My hon. Friend asked about recycling credits. T he Lords amendment sets out in detail how those credits are to be paid, and the philosophy is comparatively simple. When material is reclaimed from the waste stream and recycled, there is a saving on disposal costs. Put simply, each tonne of glass that we recycle is a tonne of which we do not have to dispose. The purpose of the amendments, which I believe have cross-party support, is to capture that sum of money in cash terms and to attribute it to the recycling activity.

Several hon. Members asked who is to receive those credits. Under amendment No. 92, they should, as a requirement, go to the waste collection authority, and also to third parties where appropriate. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wanted to ensure that that arrangement will not impede the more general recycling undertaken in the voluntary sector. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that that sector is an essential part of the activity, and we must do nothing to inhibit it.

I ask the House to reject the Opposition amendment, because there may be instances where economies of scale will make it more appropriate for a recycling scheme to be run by a waste collection authority rather than by voluntary bodies. In other cases, a number of voluntary bodies may be operating similar schemes in the same area, and it would not necessarily be appropriate for a waste disposal authority to pay credits to a number of competing schemes—especially if some of them recycle only small amounts of waste.

One can imagine a situation in which the viability of a large door-to-door collection scheme depends on collecting and recycling of all the materials, including more valuable items such as aluminium cans. It would be unfortunate if a small-scale competitor went down the street in advance of the recycling wagon and simply picked up the more valuable aluminium cans, as that might render the competing scheme uneconomic.

Are not boroughs such as Sutton and Richmond concerned that it might operate the other way around? The local collecting authority may have established a viable business and then find that it is taken away and given to another agency, private or public, so that the authority would lose that revenue. Sutton was the first local authority in Britain to introduce the recycling of CFCs, and my own local authority of Gordon was the second. They do not make money from that activity, and it is only reasonable that they should be able to secure some benefit, so that they can cross-subsidise. If revenue is lost to local authorities, a greater burden will fall on poll tax payers.

I intend to address the question of unitary disposal or collection authorities, but I was making the point that some discretion must be allowed as to the type of third party recycling scheme that a local waste disposal authority wants to encourage in its area. Because we believe in such discretion, we reject the idea of making it compulsory that recycling credits should be given automatically to every scheme in any particular area.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sutton, and I am happy to acknowledge the work done by that London borough, which is something of a leader in certain aspects of recycling.

That leads me to the disquiet felt by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). In Committee, it was agreed that waste disposal authorities should transfer their disposal operations to what were called LAWDCs—local authority waste disposal companies. A local authority will be required to transfer all the relevant plant and equipment for the keeping, treatment or disposal of such waste to such a company, or to make alternative arrangements with the private sector for its provision. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, I take it that he accepts the LAWDC principle.

It follows that it would not be sensible to allow those that happen to be both collection and disposal authorities to provide and operate as collection authorities equipment that they would be unable to provide and operate as disposal authorities. A line must be drawn somewhere, as to which plant and equipment a collection authority should operate. Our view is that the line should be drawn at the plant and equipment that a collection authority would normally provide as part of its collection duties.

The Minister says that a line must be drawn somewhere, but surely local government should be allowed to make its own decisions as to the most appropriate arrangement for a particular part of the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the tremendous variations that exist in the areas and populations involved. Instead of imposing legislation nationally, would it not be better and more democratic to allow such matters to be decided locally?

The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee and must be aware that the establishment of LAWDCs underpins this part of the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that LAWDCs need not be privately owned but can be entirely in the public sector, joint ventures, or companies jointly owned by the private and public sector.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wrote to me to ensure that, in clause 46(6), the words

"plant and equipment for the sorting and baling of waste"

include bottle banks and other collection facilities. I examined carefully the wording of the Bill, and I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the title of clause 46:

"Duties of waste collection authorities as respects disposal of waste collection."

It implies that we are here considering waste that has already been collected and is at the disposal phase. Only those facilities, and that plant and equipment, will be that from which we are precluding the collection and disposal authorities from owning. Consequently, bottle banks and light plant and equipment of that type should be permitted to be owned and run by the London boroughs that are both collection and disposal authorities. I hope that I have put the hon. Lady's mind at rest, and I invite the House to reject the Opposition amendments.

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 163 and 298.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister feel that he should say anything about the effect on airports, railway stations and ferry ports, because of the changes made by another place in clause 72 and their references in paragraph (b) of their amendment No. 163 to

"any premises used for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision to the public of transport services by land, water or air"?

Amendment 163 updates the definition of industrial waste in clause 72 in such a way that it no longer relies upon who owns or operates the industry or on what it does. That is a safer means of delivering the same effect. I remember that my hon. Friend mentioned this subject in Committee, and I am grateful to him. The amended clause would have a wider application, and it would be more stringently enforced. I think that that meets his concerns in every particular.

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments (e) to (g) and (a) to (d) to the new clause; Lords amendment No. 299, and the Government motion to disagree; and Lords amendment No. 436 and the Government motion to disagree.

In previous debates on the subject of dogs, there has been widespread agreement that measures are necessary to deal with the problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership.

We have now placed before the House a package of measures on dog identification and straying. But we remain opposed to the idea of attempting to register all dogs in the country. That would be an expensive and bureaucratic diversion from the need to act decisively against the actual problems. In short, we want to solve the problem, not register it.

A registration scheme would be expensive—according to the RSPCA's own figures, it would cost some £20 million a year simply to administer the scheme. That sum would have to be spent before providing any dog wardens or kenneling facilities at all.

Surely the whole point about the dog registration scheme is that it would be self-financing?

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he will hear me demonstrate that a dog registration scheme is an extremely inefficient way to raise money for providing dog control services. As I have said, if one takes the RSPCA's figures, £20 million a year would be diverted not into providing wardens and kennelling facilities but simply to run the scheme. Therefore, it would be entirely unproductive in dealing with the problems that exist. Registration is not an effective way to raise the necessary revenue to enforce dog control measures.

The figure that my hon. Friend has mentioned, which is not in dispute, represents £3 per dog. Does he consider that that is excessive?

The hon. Gentleman is assuming a high level of compliance. In Northern Ireland they have been attempting for the past seven years to enforce a dog licensing system costing only £5 a year. It is estimated that between one third and one half of the dogs in the Province have a licence. Widespread concern has been expressed in this country about the likely level of fees, especially for low-income dog owners.

Last year, the RSPCA commissioned a study from the London School of Economics. I can be forgiven, therefore, for quoting figures and sums that have come not from my Department but from an independent and authoritative study. It calculated that, with a 60 per cent. compliance rate, which I regard as highly optimistic in the light of the Northern Ireland experience, a one-off fee of £121·50 would be necessary. Alternatively, there could be a first-year registration fee of £29 and continuing annual fees. That would be a financial burden for some and a disincentive to register for others. It is the irresponsible dog owner who would be the last to comply and pay up. The law-abiding owner would therefore subsidise the irresponsible owner whose dogs create all the problems.

The Minister refers to the experience in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that the problem of stray dogs worrying sheep has dramatically diminished in Northern Ireland due to the introduction of the scheme? Might it not be that, although some people are reluctant to register their dogs, they now make sure that they do not cause any of the nuisances in Northern Ireland that we are so concerned about?

The number of stray dogs that have to be destroyed has not fallen. Despite the fact that the licensing system has been in operation for seven years, that pile of dead dogs that the RSPCA is so fond of showing us has been either stable or growing in that part of the United Kingdom where dog licensing has been enforced.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the chief environmental health officer of Belfast, who is on record as saying that, without dog registration, the problem would be a great deal worse?

My point is that, despite the enforcement measures that have been taken during the last seven years, fewer than half the dogs are licensed. The fee is only £5. If the fee were higher, as the scheme proponents suppose it would be here, I suggest that it might be difficult to reach even those standards of compliance.

I happened to be a Northern Ireland Minister at the time that the scheme was introduced. It was not anticipated that there would be a substantial take-up of the licence, whatever figure was set. Circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that it is very difficult for the Government to recover dues from sections of the population. The rent and rates system has been subject from time to time to rent and rate strikes. The notorious black taxis that run up and down the Falls road are unlicensed and cannot be licensed. The scheme is totally unenforceable.

Nevertheless, the experience in Northern Ireland is that the scheme has had a beneficial effect. Sheep worrying has diminished. As those who are responsible for administering the scheme are the first to state, the situation would be far, far worse without the scheme.

I would not lean too heavily on the experience in Belfast, where doubtless the conditions outlined by my hon. Friend obtain. There is no reason why compliance should not be higher in rural areas of Northern Ireland. Regrettably, in the Province as a whole, the licensing system appears to cover fewer than half the dogs.

As the Minister who was formerly responsible for agriculture and sheep worrying, I confirm that the number of complaints is low, although it is rising. The fairer way to put it is that, during the first year of the scheme's operation in Northern Ireland, if one added together the number of animals impounded and the number of animals that owners asked to be collected, the figure came to fewer than 11,000. During the last year for which we have figures, the number of animals impounded and the number of animals that owners asked to be collected came to 17,000. Those comparative figures do not self-evidently demonstrate that licensing deals with the impounding of dogs or with the dogs that their owners no longer want to keep.

I respect my hon. Friend's point. The critical factor is how many dog wardens, kennelling facilities and vehicles are used to round up, collect and hold strays. It is exactly in order to do that that we are introducing the present package of amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said that the Northern Ireland scheme resulted in an improvement. May I put it to the Minister that the scheme that he is suggesting would, in Northern Ireland circumstances, produce an even greater improvement? The burden of my hon. Friend's case is that his proposal is better than the Lords amendment.

Any improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland is not attributable to the licensing system. It is due to the wardening facilities that are available in the Province.

There is an intractable case i n my constituency which demonstrates how foolish the present regime is. In a small terraced house, there are six chow dogs and three border collies, as well as two cats. The neighbours nearly go mad. There is no law to prevent that. Such foolishness, widespread in many areas, would be deterred if people had to contribute to a sensible scheme. I have a file about the case, but I can do nothing about it. I know that similar cases occur in many other areas.

The owner of the six chow dogs might resent having to register and pay the full fee when it is not those dogs that create the problem.

To refer to the position in Northern Ireland, I have spoken personally today to the chief dog warden for Belfast city council. He assured me that Belfast welcomes licensing and regards it as absolutely essential if the council is to carry out its job properly. Is the Minister suggesting that that man is an incompetent fool?

My hon. Friend has drawn attention again to Belfast. I had not intended to lean too heavily on the experience of that one city, with its particular problems. The Government's duty, however, is to consult more widely and to talk to others, apart from the people who are employed to do the job in Belfast. We sent over officials to discuss the matter with the USPCA and local authorities and to examine statistics from a number of different sources. We concluded that the level of compliance in Northern Ireland was low and that any improvement in the stray dog problem in the Province could not be attributed to the licensing system.

As for exemptions, I have already mentioned that those who comply and pay the full fee might resent the fact that it is the irresponsible minority who create the problem who may be deterred from registering. The problem could be made worse if there were widespread exemptions. If old-age pensioners or those on income support were exempted from charges, or if there were exemptions for guide dogs or working dogs, all those animals would still have to be registered, but no income would accrue. Still higher costs could fall on the long-suffering, law-abiding owner who registers. In short, a registration scheme would be an expensive and bureaucratic way of not solving the problem.

That remains our view on dog registration, but I have always agreed about the need for action. As I said in April, and as my noble Friend Lord Hesketh said in another place, we intend to introduce measures to deal with stray dogs.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern among responsible dog owners that they will have to bear the burden of this increased bureaucracy and the enormous army of dog wardens that will be required because a significant number of irresponsible dog owners will not pay their registration fee? Is he aware that the burden of my constituency mail has changed since the House of Lords voted for a registration scheme? The majority of people who now write to me are against such a scheme, and today a petition of more than 14,000 signatures has been placed in the House of Commons against a dog registration scheme. Public opinion is turning on this issue.

My hon. Friend underlines the point that I was making about the responsible dog owner. I am aware of two large petitions that have been handed in against dog registration.

The Government always intended to deal with the problem of stray dogs, which was why last year we announced a consultation paper, "Action on Dogs". It was returned to the Department with a substantial measure of agreement. Its suggestions could not be incorporated into the original Bill as they were outside its scope, but since then the long title of the Bill has been amended in another place. It brings dog control measures clearly within the scope of the Bill, and we wish to accept that. The package of measures that we propose will, I think, tackle the problem on the ground.

Let me deal with the need for identification. Since 1930, every dog in a public place has been required to wear a collar and identification tag, with certain exemptions. Enforcement, which is split between local authorities and the police, has been extremely patchy. Amendment (g) places this duty squarely on district councils. It providces a simple, visible and immediate way of linking owner with dog and enables dogs to be returned to their owners without the need for the authorities to be involved.

I invite the House to compare that with the complexity of an electronic registration scheme, by which an implanted microchip must be read by a specialist scanner to give a number, which is then fed into a central computer to give the last recorded address of the last registered owner. We propose, instead, a practical solution to a practical problem, which dog registration does not supply.

Similarly for stray dogs; since 1906, the police have had powers to collect and hold strays and local authorities have had such powers in recent years. But no one has had the duty to collect and hold strays. We propose that this should be settled at district level. District councils will be responsible for collecting and holding stray dogs. To do that, they may employ an agent such as a dog welfare body, but they will remain responsible for carrying out their duties properly.

To encourage the public to continue to help in dealing with the stray dog problem, they will, as at present, be able to continue to take stray dogs to the nearest police station or direct to the local authority. District councils will hold stray dogs for at least seven days. If the owner retrieves the dog, he will have to pay the cost of kennelling and, in addition, a fee to defray the cost of the warden and collection service. If the dog remains uncollected, it will be sold, given away or humanely destroyed.

My hon. Friend has given slightly the wrong impression. Will he confirm that the Lords amendment does not include anything about placing an implant in a dog and electronically monitoring it? It leaves the decision on the methods of control for further discussion at some other time.

The national registration scheme which has been advocated by its roponents—[Interruption.] It is an inescapable part of that scheme that there should be a central computer and a means of linking a dog in any part of the country with that computer. All the descriptions and advice that I have received, certainly from the RSCPA, have been along the lines of an electronic device. I have already described how that is an imprecise and inefficient way of doing what is better done by enforcement of the collar and tag requirement.

I have already said that, in addition to paying the kennelling fee, a person collecting a stray dog will have to pay a fee towards the cost of the warden service. That will raise additional revenue, but I recognise that acting against strays in this manner, and the new obligation on district councils, will mean increased expenditure. Before implementing the package, we would need to discuss its details with local authorities and take the new duties into account in determining revenue support grant. More than 200 local authorities already employ dog wardens within existing resources, and I believe that the city of Bradford employs five.

Authorities can expect additional revenue when stray dogs are collected by their owners, who will pay a fee which will be retained by the district council. According to the LSE report, about a quarter of stray dogs are returned to their owners, so this source of revenue could be significant. It also has the great advantage that the dog owners who create the problem will pay directly for its solution, and again this is an advantage over a national dog registration scheme.

I should be grateful if the Minister would not, unintentionally I am sure, mislead the House on another matter. Not only has he not yet confirmed that the Lords amendment was a general amendment with no specific scheme allowing for regulations, but he has not said that more than 200 of the 250 local authorities which responded to his consultation favoured a dog registration scheme. The reality of his proposal—that people who turn up to collect their stray dog will pay—is that the fine will be paid after the dog has bolted, which is a ludicrous stystem. Is it not better that people pay in advance and become responsible from the moment the dog is theirs?

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that an electronic tagging system is now deemed impracticable, he will agree that the collar and tag requirement provides a simpler, more immediate and more direct means of linking an owner with his dog.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I must get on. Will my hon. Friend forgive me?

In earlier debates, we promised to offer local authorities improved byelaws aimed directly at curbing dog nuisance. Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office published details of such byelaws.

There are already byelaws giving local authorities the ability to require owners to clear up after their dogs, the so-called "pooper scoop" byelaw. The Home Office has now greatly extended the discretion of local authorities. They can also require dogs to be kept on a lead or banned from certain areas at certain times of the day. With the other measures against dog fouling in another part of the Bill, local authorities will have these additional clear. specific and well-targeted powers to deal with dog fouling and other nuisances in their areas.

8.30 pm

For the sake of completeness, I should remind the House that dangerous dogs were the subject of another consultation paper which we issued in June this year. Consultation on it ends on 15 November, and again we shall look for a suitable opportunity to legislate if those measures achieve wide support.

rose——

There is no one dog problem and no one solution. I notice that the advocates of dog registration have begun to downgrade its powers. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ended a recent open letter with the rather lame statement:

"A national dog registration scheme is not the answer, but it is the key to a package of measures".

I am proposing that package. It enforces identification, it acts directly against stray dogs; and it penalises the irresponsible owner. It does this without the need to get every dog on a computer. This evening, I invite the House to pass the measures which we propose. That will he a big step along the road to creating a more responsible dog-owning country.

I must oppose the Government's motion and support the amendment that was carried overwhelmingly in the House of Lords a few weeks ago. I hope to be brief—unlike the Minister—because we all want to make progress, and a good number of hon. Members want to speak.

My instant reaction to this debate is to say, here we are again. It is remarkable that, once again, the greatest Government effort on the Bill so far seems to be to defeat dog registration. It is clear that the Minister was not happy with the task allotted to him. It is not very comfortable to have to argue that people will not pay to register their dogs but will pay to collect them once they have strayed. I understand the Minister's problems.

The reason why Ministers have had to make such heavy weather of this debate is not that they are not convinced of the need for dog registration. The story that Ministers at the Department of the Environment were willing to accept the Lords amendment and the Government's defeat there has not been denied. It seems clear that the reason why we are having this debate is that one person, the Prime Minister, wants to persist in her opposition. Here we are again having this debate, with the Government refusing to do the obvious and introduce dog registration.

I remind the hon. Lady of an amendment tabled on Report to the Control of Pollution Bill in 1974 proposing a scheme for dog registration. It was not taken, but instead a working party was set up and it came forward with proposals for a dog registration scheme. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour party had the opportunity to introduce a scheme of the kind before us. Why did not it do so?

I think that opinion generally during those years was moving in favour of dog registration schemes. Without doubt, the problems that have arisen in the past 10 years prove that we need to do something urgently and stop the kind of talk on which the Minister has always embarked.

What we have seen from the Minister today is what we have seen from him on every other occasion. Every time we have this debate, the Whips scurry around and tell Ministers that they are not sure that they can carry the day. They ask Ministers to pull something out of the hat and whether they will have one of their famous incentives and produce yet another package. We have had consultation papers and discussion documents, everything from Ministers except what we need—a commitment to a dog registration scheme.

That happened again last Thursday, when there was a planted question and the Whips were worried about tonight's vote. The package that the Minister outlined this evening is exactly the same as all the other so-called packages: it is all wrapping and no content, not least because Ministers are extremely worried that if they concede anything, the Prime Minister will have her say and they will all be in trouble.

I see that the junior Minister had yet again been left isolated to deal with the problem.

The hon. Lady keeps making the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is behind this, but she keeps forgetting that many hon. Members are wholly opposed to such a scheme because it would not work and does not address the problem.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. Every time we have had a vote, every time we have had a debate on dog registration, it has become clear that the majority of Members—Ministers apart—have always voted for dog registration.

The Minister should step back from his brief and instructions and think about the problems that are involved and that he has mentioned—of dog control, dog fouling and dangerous dogs—and ask himself why so many people are in favour of dog registration. Why are the majority of the public in favour of dog registration? The majority of Back Benchers, members of the House of Lords and dog owners are in favour of dog registration.

Many responsible organisations that have experience or expertise in these matters are committed to a dog registration scheme: the Association of District Councils, which is mainly Conservative controlled; the Battersea dogs' home; the British Veterinary Association; Child Care Concern; the Country Landowners Association; the Institution of Environmental Health Officers; the National Canine Defence League; the National Farmers Union; the National Federation of Women's Institutes; the Police Federation; and the Townswomen's Guild—not organisations that always support the Labour party. They are a cross-section of people who have had different experiences of the problems about which we are talking. I hope that Ministers will not push their concerns to one side and will not simply say that something will be done at some time. Ministers and Conservative Members should realise that it is about time we had action.

We must be absolutely clear about the content of the Lords amendment. It is a straightforward amendment, which states that a dog registration scheme should be established. It is not, as the Minister implied, a prescriptive amendment in terms of the exact scheme that has to be introduced—that is to be left to the Government, presumably after consultation with local authorities. As the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, it is not an amendment that prescribes an electronic or tattooing scheme or any other scheme; it simply establishes the principle of the introduction of a dog registration scheme.

What is more, the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords now allows two years for the process of introducing the scheme. That followed a Government-inspired amendment, which the Opposition did not oppose, in the hope of getting the amendment on to the statute book. Before Conservative Members take note of what the Minister said about electronic schemes, they should remember that the House of Lords decision is a vote in principle for the establishment of a dog registration scheme, not any one variation of that kind. Dog registration is a pro-dog measure. It will promote better and more responsible dog ownership. It will make people think before they obtain a dog.

The Minister argues that a dog registration scheme would be extremely bureaucratic. That is rich coming from a Government who introduced poll tax registration and all the measures that went with it. The Minister also said that dog registration would be expensive.

If, as even I acknowledge, a number of people are reluctant to pay the community charge, why should they be so keen to pay for dog registration?

I hardly think that the dog registration fee will be as high as the poll tax, although I am sure that Ministers could contrive to make it so if they put their minds to it. They could certainly make it as complex and bureaucratic if they so wished.

The Minister referred to the expense of introducing the scheme and, in an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) expressed his concern about the cost to local authorities of a registration scheme. I think that local authorities will have more reason to worry about coping with the problem of dog control under the amendment suggested by the Minister without the income that a dog registration scheme would provide. All the Minister's proposals will place extra burdens on local authorities and penalise those authorities that take the most action, because they will provide nothing in the way of extra resources to allow the authorities to deal with the problems that the Minister is passing on to them.

We must make a positive decision. Ministers have given us enough promises in the past. The public and the majority of dog owners will not understand if we let the problem drift further. I hope that the House will support the dog registration scheme and the amendment.

It gives me no pleasure whatever to be at variance with the Government on the question of dog registration. With regard to the other measures that the Government propose, some are better than others, but I fear that, without dog registration, they will be largely ineffective.

If any measures are to be enforced, it is absolutely essential to establish the ownership of the dog. I do not believe that ownership can he satisfactorily established without registration. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, the Lords amendment—like my earlier new clause—does not seek to lay down details but rather to establish the principle of compulsory dog registration with the local authorities charged with implementing it. That was done purposely because there are different ways of dealing with the details of the scheme.

Perhaps I may describe how I think the scheme would and should work. If we had a computer system, with each dog given a distinctive identification number or mark, dogs would be registered for all time. Whether that is done by collar and tag or whether by collar and tag plus an implant or tattooing is up for consideration during the two-year period that the Lords envisage. The point is that each dog would have its own distinct identity mark. That would make it very much easier for the authorities—particularly dog wardens, who would, I imagine, be the enforcement authority—to check the records and trace the owner.

In that connection, it is interesting to note the experience of Battersea dogs home, which has decided, as a matter of principle and policy, to use the implant system. It has been doing so for some months and there have been some beneficial results for dog owners who have lost their dogs and have been reunited with them very quickly. Apparently, it has also made a great difference to the way in which those who take over stray dogs and give them new homes have felt about the matter. It has made them much more responsible. They know that if they do not look after the dog and if it goes on the streets again, it can be traced back to its owner. That registration scheme in microcosm is in operation on a voluntary basis. It is an extremely interesting scheme, and I urge any hon. Members who are doubtful about the matter to go to Battersea dogs home.

8.45 pm

We also know that it is perfectly simple to set up a computer system to register all dogs. On a voluntary basis, that is happening now among owners who wish to keep control of their animals through the computer scheme organised by the Wood Green animal shelter——

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not think that he is with me on this.

The hon. Lady knows that I share her concern for dogs and that, even if I do not necessarily agree with her approach, I respect her commitment. She was courteous enough to allow me to intervene in her speech last time we debated the matter and I asked her what she estimated the cost of registration would be. I recollect that she informed the House that it would be £2·50. Clearly, we shall have to debate these matters again during the next two years, but does she agree that if a system of identification by transponder is introduced, it will cost a great deal more than she suggested? Does she also agree that it will be resented by pensioners with their poodles and widows with their Pekinese who do not particularly want to have electric gadgets inserted into their dogs' ears or necks?

The hon. Gentleman's recollection is correct. I said that it would cost about £2·50 and certainly less than £3 for the registration scheme alone. Much will depend on whether the transponder system is taken up and on whether we wish to load on to the registration fee some or all of the costs of the dog wardens, who will presumably act as the enforcement agency. All that is up for negotiation, but the basic cost of a simple computer registration system will be under £3 per dog per year.

There is plenty of scope for deciding what the fee might be. I should not wish the fee to be huge, for reasons that I am sure hon. Members will understand. We do not wish to discourage dog ownership or to place an onerous burden on those who cannot afford it. It would be possible to use the licence fee to introduce a differential system. For example, we might wish to encourage people to spay or neuter their animals, in which case we could charge a lower fee for those who did so and a higher one for those who wished their dogs to remain entire. That is one possibility. If we wished, it would certainly be possible to grant exemptions or charge very small amounts in the case of worthy groups such as people on income support and those with guide dogs or working dogs. Those are all possibilities. The details are not inherent in the scheme proposed in the amendment; it is merely a scheme in principle. I warmly welcome the Lords decision that we should allow two years to give ample scope for discussions with all the interested parties.

Does my hon. Friend agree that licensing has to be considered in relation to the cost of keeping a dog and that as one cannot keep even a small dog for less than £4 a week—allowing for vets' bills, grooming and food—a licence fee of even £10 or £15 a year is not a vast amount?

I entirely agree. However, by accepting the amendment in principle, we are not tied to some vast figure. It is perfectly possible to arrange the scheme as we wish. As it stands, the Government are asking local authorities to take on a great deal without the technical means to bring the scheme about. I am referring to the need for dog wardens, RSPCA inspectors and others to be able to trace owners and lay the responsibility on them.

It is extremely interesting that all those people who have to deal with the problem want registration to enable them to carry out their duties. For example, RSPCA inspectors have told me that they have lost cases in court or have not taken cases to court because they could not establish ownership. Dog wardens have the same problem. The inspectors, the dog wardens, the Association of District Councils and everyone who must work the system wants registration.

I agree that the identification of dogs is important. But what advantage does a registration system have over my plan for the enforcement of the wearing of a collar and identification tag? After all, a tag is a visible means by which anyone can link a dog to its owner. To the extent that an owner may refuse to place a collar and tag on his dog, he might be the same kind of person who would refuse to register in the first place, particularly as the privilege of registration will entail the payment of a fee.

That sounds an extremely interesting and ingenious argument. I believe that collars and tags are important, but that system should be linked to a central computer scheme so that, in addition to the tag, there are details on record in a central computer where they are easily available. As I understand it, that is not what the Government are suggesting. If they are suggesting that, it is a different matter, but that is not my understanding of the Government's proposal.

My hon. Friend emphasises the need to establish the ownership of the dog. However, as many people did not pay the old dog licence, as many people do not pay the road fund licence and as many people do not pay the television licence, what guarantee is there that the irresponsible dog owner would pay this tax?

Before I answer that, may I invite my hon. Friend to tell me whether he is advocating the abolition of all those licence fees?

The dog licence fee was abolished because the cost of collection was so much greater than the revenue raised. I suspect that my hon. Friend would have similar problems with this cock-eyed scheme.

Those who have been in the House for some time and have followed my views on this matter will know that I was one of those who most earnestly urged the Government in those days to increase the dog licence fee. Of course it was not working and I said that it should be reformed. We have now moved on to registration, which is an improvement. However, the scheme did not work when the cost was only 37·5p, simply because it was not worth while for the police or any other authority to press the matter. That would have been ludicrous. However, that is no reason not to have a proper registration scheme now. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has advocated so weak an argument.

Has my hon. Friend considered that this proposition, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the House should never pass a law if that law is likely to be broken by some members of the general public?

My hon. Friend, with his legal training, has put it excellently. Moreover, it is clear that we could divide dog owners into various groups. Some will comply with the proposal immediately because it is the law; I am not as pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Minister in thinking that that group will be very small. I believe that it will be a large group. Another group of dog owners will register if they are pressed and pushed to do so. With the kind of system that I have in mind, with dog wardens to enforce it, a large number of owners would register. That would leave a relatively small group causing the problems. However, the dog wardens would be more able to concentrate on those problems.

I suspect that in practice people who are disturbed by dogs which bark, bite or run around causing a nuisance, and who find it virtually impossible now to bring a court case against a neighbour because people must live with their neighbours—who would want to bring a court case against a neighbour with all the difficulties that that involves?—will find it easier to tell the local authority that a problem exists. That problem will then be handed over to the dog warden who will deal with it. That would be a very good and practical beneficial arrangement.

In short, there is no substitute for dog registration. I admire their Lordships for taking up the issue and I hope that we shall not be so foolish now as to throw out this amendment which their Lordships have invited us to accept.

I will speak briefly in favour of the Lords amendment, which is backed by more than 80 per cent. of dog owners, by the experience in Northern Ireland and by more than four fifths of the local authorities which were consulted.

I want to deal first with the intervention by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and the proposition that a scheme which is incapable of perfect application is better than no scheme at all. There may of course be some people who will not pay a dog registration fee, just as the hon. Gentleman implicitly concede'. that some people do not pay their vehicle excise licence fees. I did not hear him deny that we should have such a vehicle excise licence fee when invited to do so by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes). The alternative is a scheme under which the owner pays only if the dog is rounded up as a stray and then collected by the owner. To have a proper control system for dogs, we need more money than that.

The hon. Gentleman is right to state that the question is how we pay for the warden service. We must also consider how the dog is traced back to the owner. At what charge would half the money go to the dog warden service, and not just to the cost of the registration scheme? If we had some way of tracing a stray, caught dog back to its owner, would we be required to have a last-owner liability clause? If not, someone could deny that the dog was still his.

A last-owner liability clause would probably be necessary. On his first point, as he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, he will know that the fee in Northern Ireland has been £5. That fee was mentioned in his own written answer on 1 March this year, when he described it—in col. 304 of the Official Report—as part of a system that was "working well". I presume that that is consistent with the accurate point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake that it may be necessary to charge £2·50 or perhaps £3 for the cost of administering the scheme. Therefore, even a £5 fee would produce almost an equivalent amount to go to the dog warden service—and, therefore, the local authority's costs in dealing with the problems arising from dogs.

There are some obvious issues with which the country must deal. We must deal, for instance, with the pollution that is caused by dogs. The Government always say that they believe in the polluter paying. The nearest we can get to that—as dogs cannot pay—is the owner paying. The logic of the Government's position is that the owner should pay. There is also the question of noise pollution—we are to have a debate on that on Wednesday. One of the obvious examples is the noise from barking dogs. Whether they are personally or corporately owned, it is much more likely that a responsible attitude would be taken if those who purchased dogs had to pay a charge in advance.

In relation to dogs that roam or stray, or are out of control, I do not dissent from the Minister's propositions that responsibility for stray dogs should be transferred from the police to the local authority, and that the control mechanism should be changed. However, the Lords amendment is not an alternative to his stray dog scheme and his change of scheme.

As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), for the whole of his lifetime there has been a control-of-dogs provision by way of collar and tag, which derives from the Control of Dogs Order 1930. How many prosecutions have there been in those 60 years? The answer is, very few.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No; other hon. Members wish to speak.

The number of prosecutions has gone up since we abolished the dog licence.

Yes, but the reality is that they are minimal. That will make only a minimal contribution to linking the dog with the owner, which is the key issue in this debate.

rose——

I had better give way to the Minister.

There were 188 successful prosecutions last year, which I agree is too few, given the scope of the problem. The reason is that no one body has the duty of enforcing the collar-and-tag requirement. The police and the local authorities have the power to do so; what we are proposing is that local authorities should have the duty. That would give real effect to the measure, and real identification. Everyone will know that it will be enforced.

I wish that that were the case. Although there may be one enforcement agency—the local authority—without additional resources it will not be enforcing the measure. Without the money to employ the people, it will not succeed.

The Minister knows the statistics as well as I do. The example of Bradford—which he cited—shows that 95 per cent. of stray dogs are never recovered by their owners. Only one in six stray dogs that arrive at Battersea dogs' home is recovered by its owner. We will not receive the money for the local authorities by collecting stray dogs; that can only be done by means of a principle which requires people to pay when they acquire a dog, and which means a much higher revenue income for the local authorities and a much better chance of enforcement thereafter.

9 pm

We have been offered a set of measures from the Government that are limited, minimal and likely to make only a small improvement to our present system. The principled alternative proposed by the Lords allows the mechanisms to be worked out by popular debate. The Government have been once bitten by the measure at the other end of the Palace not many days ago; I should have thought that they would be twice shy, but they have been foolish enough to come back. All that I can say to Conservative Members who have expressed a strong view on this topic is that I hope they make it clear that this Parliament is no one's poodle. I hope that tonight will be the night when Parliament bites back.

The whole House will admire my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) for the way in which she has supported the welfare of animals over the years, and the consistency with which she has been willing to put forward propositions that at times have been unpopular, to the extent that Governments have not followed them through. When she argued for an increase in the dog licence, successive Governments ducked the issue. That is why the 37·5p fee decayed in terms of value and fund raising, although it was not hypothecated to a dog warden service.

It is quite clear that there are a number of problems, one of which is stray dogs. That can be a major problem, as the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) could confirm. In our borough, there have been times when the postal service has been suspended because the number of attacks on postal delivery workers has made it unsafe to let them continue with their work. Many other hon. Members can confirm that, especially in some urban areas, there are problems associated with dogs straying and dogs attacking people. There is also the problem of dog mess. Many people should be more explicit in saying that the number of dogs in cities and towns is too high and needs to be reduced.

The problem lies in trying to link the problems together and whether the RSPCA has hit upon the key. I do not say that it argues that it will solve all problems; however, it argues that registration is the key to everything else. I have doubts about that.

My doubts have been confirmed by the fact that, since I gave a parliamentary answer as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office some months ago, and since I put out a press statement in the early summer, there has riot been a bark in my direction—there has not even been a woof or whimper or even a suggestion that we might get together. It strikes me that, if RSPCA officials think that their arguments are sufficient to convince someone like myself, who is obviously well known to be open-minded, they would have made some approach to me.

Let us consider why RSPCA staff were so reluctant to be involved in direct debate. They have not persuaded the other place that a particular scheme will work. The House of Lords and many other supporters of the amendment say that there is a problem and that, as the RSPCA has said that registration is the answer, therefore registration is the answer to the problems. Links have not been demonstrated.

Sometimes, people build on my parliamentary answer and say that the Northern Ireland licensing system, which is different from registration, is fulfilling its objectives. That takes us back to sheep worrying. No doubt the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will say that this matter is not just about sheep, because he was one of the Ministers involved in the matter, and that others with Northern Ireland experience can talk also. From the figures for 1984–89, one can demonstrate that very little has changed in terms of the number of dogs that were registered, impounded and destroyed. It is not the answer to most of the problems that concern people in most of the built-up areas of Great Britain.

One should examine the number of prosecutions for animals that have bitten or harmed human beings. I do not think that the RSPCA has put forward its registration scheme as dealing with that issue, except to the extent that it may deal in part with the excessive number of animals. We need to make it unfashionable to own a dog if it is not possible adequately to cope with it and its consequences.

It is certainly true—I do not think that, with his experience, my hon. Friend would gainsay it—that, since registration, the number of dog attacks in Northern Ireland has been dramatically reduced. My hon. Friend chides those of us who are in favour of dog registration for not making contact with him. Upon reflection, he will appreciate that we read his parliamentary answer in which he said that the scheme was working well in Northern Ireland. Naturally, we assumed that he would be consistent and join us in the Lobby tonight.

I look forward to my next invitation to speak in my hon. Friend's constituency—I shall talk about dogs instead of politics. The RSPCA has been briefing Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) saying that, because I as a Minister gave that answer, it copes with problems associated with dogs. However, it does not deal with the primary question of how to get people voluntarily to reduce the number of dogs that they keep in cities and built-up areas.

People need to answer the question of how they will cope with dog mess for a start. Each person who owns a dog needs to be able to answer to their neighbour, especially if that neighbour has children, where dog mess will be laid and whether it will be left there by the owner. People in Bermondsey, Eltham, Manchester and all urban parts of this country need to ask dog owners, "Can you answer that question?"

I have a simple question. Does the former Northern Ireland Minister think that it will be an incentive or a disincentive to people who contemplate acquiring a dog that they might have to pay something? If it is a disincentive, it is surely likely to reduce the number of dogs in Eltham, Bermondsey and elsewhere.

If that is the basic issue for reducing the number of dogs, the RSPCA, the hon. Gentleman, myself and others should all be saying so out loud, in the same way that the hon. Gentleman at least has the courage to give the answer which the RSPCA has not, according to my knowledge, given up to now.

For the registration scheme to work and for us to be able to track a dog back to its owner, last-owner liability will be necessary. We have had problems with such an approach to cars, and it has proved controversial. I hope that those who say that registration is the answer to these problems will have the guts to say that in public and more often, because I am not aware that they have done so. It has been one of the cosy little exclusions from the public debate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the RSPCA has still not learned its lesson in terms of giving half or untrue statistics? One of its advertisements today states:

"There are still 500,000 homeless strays roaming our streets".

That figure of 500,000 is taken from an RSPCA report in which the London School of Economics states that the vast majority of such dogs are not homeless strays, but "latch-key dogs" which are let out by their owners.

Instead of "latch-key" perhaps my hon. Friend should describe them as "poop" dogs—people are embarrassed by dogs' natural functions.

It is not my aim to get at the RSPCA, because even those of us who do not recognise the merits of the registration scheme admire much of the RSPCA's work. Many of us believe that, if the RSPCA had put half the effort into its "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas" campaign, as it has into this, it could have achieved a great deal more in the past few years than it has by managing to persuade some people that the answer to this problem is for the House to pass, in principle, a requirement for registration without going into the necessary details. That would be an undesirable precedent.

May I work towards a conclusion by referring——

What is the hon. Gentleman's view?

I had been trying to put forward my view before the hon. Gentleman intervened from a sedentary position.

There are problems that need dealing with. I have dealt with the question of numbers. Many people who keep dogs cannot cope with them adequately. Others can cope, but are not prepared to do so. People may laugh at the pooper scoop idea, but unless people are willing to cope with the consequences of owning a dog in an urban area, they are not facing the consequences of owning a dog. The Kennel Club, dogs clubs and the RSPCA should be saying that clearly, as should pet shop owners.

In various positions of responsibility, I have had to face the issue whether an extra law would be the best way of making a difference. The greatest parallel with this issue is that of drink-driving. I do not want to go into that in depth, but in 1986 it was calculated that there were 2 million occasions per week when men would drive when above the legal limit. Many people said that that was a problem.

In politics, the conventional thing is to go from saying, "There is a problem," to saying, "They should not do it," to saying, "I should not do it", then, " I intend not to do it," to saying, "I do not do it."

The conventional way of approaching that series is to offer legislation, money transfers or exhortation. In practice, we need to get the people who are part of the problem to become part of the solution.

Between 1986 and 1988, without any change in the law, enforcement or sentencing, the number of occasions when people drove above the legal limit was reduced from 2 million to 600,000. That happened as a result of giving information and letting people realise that there were things that they could be doing. What was happening——

Rubbish.

It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting "Rubbish," because it is a fact.

Instead of people believing that the problem could be solved by some wishy-washy system of registration, it is better to approach the dog owners themselves and to ask them whether they are willing to do now what the law and the RSPCA are asking—without even half the cost of a registration scheme.

I hope that the House will support the Government, and that the various stages that were announced last week and those which are set out in the Government amendment will be supported. I also hope that the Lords' approach will be rejected, because it does not give the House the necessary details for a scheme that could cope with 7 million dog owners. The problem needs a better solution than that suggested by the Lords.

Much has rightly been said in the House and in another place about the Northern Ireland scheme and, of course, we have heard something of it again tonight. That is right. When I was junior Minister in the late 1970s I was engaged in the long consultative process that eventually resulted in the order which, it must not be forgotten, was introduced by the Government in 1983.

The Northern Ireland experience is central to the debate. We must examine it closely if we are to convince some of the waverers on the Conservative Benches to accept amendment No. 296. The director of the environmental health service in Belfast city council has already been referred to. He believes that the scheme works well. We also heard from the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 1 March this year that the scheme was working well.

We should consider some of the Government's arguments on the matter. First, they argue that the Northern Ireland scheme has failed to meet the problem of strays because the number of stray dogs put down in the Province has not decreased. Yet the Government seem not to listen to the evidence provided by the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which reported a dramatic reduction in roaming packs of dogs and strays on the streets. Indeed, Robert Wilson, the director of USPCA, has pointed out that although absolute numbers—this is where Conservative Members are confused—of impounded dogs have shown little sign of falling, wardens are collecting from a reduced pool of strays on the streets. In any case, to concentrate solely on strays can be misleading.

The main thrust for change in Northern Ireland came from the Ulster Farmers Union lobby, and rightly so. A great number of sheep were being killed by dogs and it was a worrying factor.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not give way because of the time factor. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.

Many instances of sheep worrying involved dogs owned by hitherto so-called responsible owners. Identifying the owners was a large part of the problem. Since the introduction of licensing, the Ulster Farmers Union has reported a reduction in livestock worrying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will be aware of that. That was despite a growth in the sheep flock from 1 million in 1983 when the order was introduced to 2·3 million sheep and livestock in 1989.

A 100 per cent. increase.

As my right hon. Friend says, a 100 per cent. increase.

If the Government have not listened to the environmental health officers who administer the scheme, the USPCA—which deals with some of the problems caused by dogs—or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, of which the traffic division has noted a 25 per cent. reduction in road accidents involving dogs since the introduction of licensing, who have they been talking to and listening to?

The Government's main failure is in recognising the central ethos of the Northern Ireland scheme, which is a positive approach to dog ownership. The scheme seeks to support and sustain a package of comprehensive measures with the general aim of encouraging responsible dog ownership. It has at its roots a dog licensing scheme. That welcome approach is encapsulated in the amendment. The Government propose to introduce nothing further than a handful of provisions for dealing with stray dogs after an offence has been committed. In other words, they seek to deal with the problem once it exists. The approach of the amendment is to suggest a scheme that would facilitate a host of realistic measures to encourage widespread responsible dog ownership before an offence takes place.

The RSPCA sees registration as an essential element in introducing health and welfare programmes, neutering advice and effective enforcement. Furthermore, the knowledge that their dog is registered should have a beneficial effect on owners' treatment and care of their dogs. They will know that the dog could be traced back to them and that they could be held responsible. That would therefore reduce the risk of dogs being allowed to stray or to cause a nuisance in the first place. We should adopt the course tonight.

The Government have manifestly failed to listen to those with first-hand experience of the problem in Northern Ireland, but have they sought the opinion of the 200-odd authorities up and down the country that already run dog warden schemes? If my local authority, Tameside, is anything to go by, however, the Government have failed in that respect as well. If they had sought such opinion, the Government would have learned that the lack of resources available to Tameside and other authorities to finance their dog wardens is severely hampering their efforts. That is why my local authority and most others will support our efforts tonight.

The Government argue that the proposed registration scheme is an inefficient means of raising revenue for dog control services. Their amendments, however, provide no means of financing their proposals other than leaving it to local councils to find the funds in their already overstretched budgets.

In truth, the Government do not see the problem in the same way as the rest of society. The amendment is supported by those at the sharp end who must deal with the problem caused by the absence of responsible dog ownership. The only similar scheme operating in the United Kingdom is a success.

The Government should not be dragged along by the collar when it comes to introducing a dog registration scheme. They should appreciate the force of the argument put forward by those who know the extent of the problem at the sharp end. They should withdraw their amendment and promote a dog registration scheme in the interests of all responsible owners, local authorities and the public.

rose——

Mr. John Butterfill. If the hon. Gentleman should like to speak from a sitting position I will understand.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak from a sedentary position. I should explain that my present indisposition arises from a minor operation to my left ankle and not from being savaged by a particular breed of dog.

I address the House as a member of the general council of management of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. I must stress, however, that I am speaking in a purely personal capacity and not on behalf of the PDSA. As a matter of principle, the PDSA does not take a political stance on any issue, unlike some other societies, although it often works in close co-operation with the RSPCA and other animal organisations.

The PDSA confines its activities to providing veterinary care to those people whose financial circumstances would otherwise prevent them from obtaining such care for their animals. As such, it does a great deal of work particularly with small animals, but the bulk of its work is concerned with the care of dogs.

It is interesting to consider why dogs come into the care of the PDSA in order to assess its relevance to our discussion. Dogs are often brought for medical attention to the PDSA because of ignorance about how to care for a dog. Another reason may well be the poverty of the owner. Poverty often dissuades people from having their dogs neutered—a desirable method of keeping the dog population down. I believe that neutering would be a far more effective means of controlling the dog population than the deterrent posed by the cost of the fee. The only way in which to reduce the dog population is to prevent dogs breeding.

Dogs also receive care from the PDSA because of problems arising from lack of inoculation—another desirable treatment that prevents disease in the inoculated dog and the spread of disease to other dogs. Dogs also receive treatment because of simple neglect, injury or other infections caused as a result of being strays.

It is important to consider the problems that arise, to see whether the registration scheme might have the effect of remedying some of them. Certainly, there is rarely a suggestion that there is a problem in identifying the owners of fierce dogs. If the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it should be mandatory for a dog to carry a tag were taken up, and if that were enforceable by a responsible agency, that problem would be overcome.

I do not see how registration will prevent the problem of dogs straying. Dogs stray for all sorts of reasons, often simply because their owners do not take sufficient care of them. I do not see how that would be remedied by registration. In addition, I do not see how registration would prevent the fouling of public places, which will surely be prevented only by owners being more responsible for their dogs' care.

The cost of the scheme such as that proposed by the RSPCA is far greater than has been recognised tonight. I have studied the report by the London School of Economics, published in 1989 for the RSPCA, which states that the total annual cost of such a scheme would be about £40 million if the cost of wardens were included.

If we accept that the dog population is about 7 million and allow perhaps two years' inflation on that figure, it works out at about £7 a dog, but that would be only if all dogs were registered and all owners paid. I am sure that Opposition Members would wish to exempt the elderly, the blind and those in receipt of state benefits, which might reduce the number paying by half.

rose——

I should get on.

If such exemptions were to be made, it would halve the number of people paying for the scheme and double the cost to £14 or £15. In Northern Ireland about 60 per cent. of owners fail to register, which could double the cost again and we could be talking about an effective cost of £30 a dog.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I want to be quite clear on this—I believe that the figures that my hon. Friend just quoted from the LSE report were based on a 60 per cent. compliance rate, not a 100 per cent. rate, as he seemed to intimate.

The report assumed a compliance rate that was considerably worse than that experienced in Northern Ireland. That was one reason why I questioned the figure.

I am worried that we would need an army of bureaucrats to enforce such a scheme. We would need clerks, wardens and inspectors—the latter would presumably need powers to enforce their activities. Would hon. Members be prepared to grant inspectors the right of entry into people's homes if those inspectors suspected that an unregistered dog was being kept there? I do not think that that would be particularly attractive to those concerned about civil rights.

I believe that the Government have the right answer. Their proposals for the seizure of strays and their delivery to the authorities, for the proper enforcement by responsible authorities of collar and tag, for the right of disposal of stray dogs to the finder or elsewhere if they are unclaimed and to give local authorities powers to enforce byelaws on fouling are right. My own local authority, Bournemouth borough council, has made vigorous representations about its need to have the right to produce new byelaws to deal with the fouling problem, which is particularly prevalent in Bournemouth. The other proposals that the Government have suggested that they may bring forward, such as muzzling to deal with fierce dogs, are to he welcomed. I await, as I am sure do other hon. Members, the results of the Government's consultations, which are to finish on 15 November.

There is another remedy that would perhaps do more than anything else to solve the problems that we experience with dogs—a voluntary neutering scheme for dogs. The heart of the problem is that we have too many dogs and many of them behave badly. Neutering makes fierce dogs less aggressive, male dogs much less likely to stray in search of female company and reduces the unwanted dog population. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Minister were inclined to consider that as a possibility, I am sure that the PDSA would welcome it.

I wholeheartedly support the Lords amendment and I hope that there will now be an end to the long discussions on this issue. I pay tribute to the work not only of the RSPCA, but of an organisation that has been campaigning on this issue for a great deal longer—the League for the Introduction of Canine Control. When the issue was not as popular as it is now, many people put their heads over the parapet, but they were laughed down. The change in public opinion over many years owes much to the work and the campaigns of many organisations, not least the League for the Introduction of Canine Control. The licence fee should never have been abolished; it should have been increased. It was not, and we are paying for that.

I want to make a brief point about Northern Ireland. People will be interested to know that many hon. Members have suddenly taken an interest in Northern Ireland's handling of the issue. There is not usually so much discussion about Northern Ireland matters. In fact, the scheme has been successful, as all responsible opinion will confirm. If the Minister believes that it has been unpopular and unproductive, why does not he propose abolishing the scheme in Northern Ireland? He will not do that because he knows that the people of Northern Ireland want the scheme and that it has been successful.

I direct most of my remarks at a group of people who have been greatly affected by dogs—the 110,000 postmen and women who have been attacked many times while doing their jobs. Together with newspaper delivery boys, meter readers and so on, they visit every address in the country. The figures clearly show an increase in dog attacks during the past two years. It is astonishing that in 1989 dog attacks on postmen and women increased by 9·5 per cent. over the previous year—7,717 were attacked in the course of their duties. Those are only the recorded attacks, and they are in addition to an 18 per cent. increase in 1987.

Not only do such dog attacks cause trauma, misery and distress, but they result in many lost working days. Indeed, the number of lost working days between 1987 and 1988 increased by 45 per cent. Dog attacks were directly responsible for 4,711 lost working days—[Interruption.] I know that some hon. Members may not want to hear the figures, but they are important statistics that show the number of dog attacks on working people. Those lost working days represented 15 per cent. of all days lost through sickness and injury in the Post Office service—and they are only the reported attacks. Hon. Members should appreciate that many people do not report them.

The Union of Communication Workers has been campaigning to highlight the incidence of dog attacks. Many jokes are made about them, but in one incident a postwoman in Gloucester had her ear bitten off, and in another, a postman was so badly injured that he was compelled to seek early retirement and will need medical attention for the rest of his life.

I bet that most of the letters received on the subject by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House come from women. They have campaigned for many years, complaining that whenever they allow their children to use parks, they return with the mess left by dog faeces all over them—and I am sure that it is usually women who have to clear it up, not men.

Mothers on housing estates in inner city areas are terrified to let their children play outside because of the danger posed by roaming dogs. Unless a link can be made between a dog and its owner, such problems cannot be controlled. All the measures in the world will not work unless there is a registration scheme. If we want to enforce such a scheme, we can—in the same way as we enforce television licensing and vehicle registration, which the Government take very seriously.

The Government—if not the majority of Conservative Members in this case—take a laissez-faire, do-nothing approach. I ask all right hon. and hon. Members who will vote tonight to examine their consciences and ask themselves how many more children must be bitten, how many more postmen and postwomen attacked, and how many other members of the public must suffer before they realise that their vote can make the difference and will really matter tonight? It is not just a question of voting with one's party but of voting in the way that one knows one's constituents want.

I hope that the Government realise that they are isolated on this issue. Dog ownership is not a right but a privilege, and with that privilege goes responsibility to the dog and to the rest of society. Just as one cannot walk into a garage, buy a car and drive it away without proof that one can drive, so one should not be able to walk into a shop and buy a dog without proving that one can look after it and without registering it. None of the Government's measures will work unless there is at the top a simple administrative measure for a national registration scheme. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to end the debate and vote to introduce a dog registration scheme, to make people's lives safer and dog owners a lot happier.

The Government had the wisdom to introduce a dog registration scheme in Northern Ireland and, contrary to some of the information that the House has been offered this evening, that scheme has worked. The chief warden for Belfast, who has been in the House all day, has informed many right hon. and hon. Members that, since the introduction of a registration scheme in Northern Ireland, the incidence of sheep worrying has fallen dramatically, as have the number of traffic accidents caused by dogs and the number of attacks by dogs on people, particularly children.

Do all these good things that have happened in Northern Ireland have anything to do with the fact that there is a charge for a licence—there is no identification on the dog—or is it because they introduced a dog warden scheme at the same time?

I was going to come to that. This afternoon an hon. Friend challenged me with that argument saying, "Ah, yes, but that is because of the warden scheme: it has nothing to do with dog registration." Again, I am assured by the chief dog warden, who I suspect knows a little about this subject, that dog registration needed to be on the statute book. Non-registration had to be an offence to give the powers that exist in Northern Ireland some teeth. Without registration those powers are ineffective.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister is in the unhappy position of having to salute a flag nailed to the mast some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), which has been fluttering there in tatters ever since.

I have supported the cause of dog registration consistently since we began to discuss it shortly after I entered the House. I shall support it again in the Lobby tonight.

I have listened with great care to the Minister's arguments and read with great care the amendments tabled by the Government. All amendments depend upon identification of the dog if they are to work, and identification must be dependent on some form of registration scheme. I do not accept the Minister's argument that a tag round the neck is sufficient identification. There is a proper and sensible way to do it.

The Minister said that registration would lead to awful bureaucracy. I am a fervent supporter of the community charge. I find no problem whatever with a registration system that requires more than 20 million charge payers to be registered, so I find even less problem with a system that would require about 7·5 million dogs to be registered.

This morning, an interviewer asked me whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to say that the introduction of what will inevitably become known as the dog tax is unpopular. I had to say yes; it will be unpopular. Once people are asked to pay for something as opposed to voting for it or talking about it they will not like it, but that does not mean that it is not right or worth while. For those reasons, I know of no reason for going back on my commitment to a dog registration scheme.

The Northern Ireland experience is that registration did not prove unpopular. About 20,000 dogs were registered before the new dogs order was passed. Once it was introduced and the fee went up to £5, the number of dogs registered went up to 80,000, which is four times the previous figure.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have heard much about the fee this evening. Hon. Members who believe in dog registration are talking about a funded system, on the "user pays" principle—something in which I thought the Government believed. The Minister is putting forward an unfunded system, which will ultimately have to be funded by local authorities. The Minister will say that the scheme will be funded through rate support grant and he may go on to say that it will be fully funded. I doubt that very much.

I fear that if the Government amendments are passed and the Lords amendment is defeated, it will be open season for every local authority to increase its community charge because it will be required to provide a dog warden system which no one else is paying for. I shudder to think what increase in community charge the socialist republic of Lambeth is likely to levy to provide wardens under the scheme which, as it stands before us tonight, is unfunded.

I believe that the system devised by the Lords and the two-year consultation period is a workable answer and I offer my hon. Friend the Minister my services to seek ways through the maze to a solution.

I hope and believe that many of my hon. Friends, on reflection, will join other hon. Members to support the Lords amendment and see this scheme through once and for all.