asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, EC Transport Ministers agreed a second stage of air transport liberalisation measures, and committed themselves to a single market in aviation by 1992. Regulations on fares, market access and capacity sharing, and on the application of the competition rules to air transport were agreed. Agreement was also reached on a mandate for the opening of negotiations in aviation matters with EFTA. Commitments were made to adopt measures to liberalise air cargo services by 31st March 1991 and to deal with predatory activities by airlines. The Commission's proposals on denied boarding compensation were not, however, discussed.

My Lords, I believe that there is much for us to study in that most helpful reply which indicates action rather than procrastination. I believe that the Government have worked hard to bring about this change. Can the House be sure that they will continue to keep up the pressure in Europe so that the interim measures in the autumn, and the more radical general measures post-1992, will bring wider competition and cheaper air fares? That is what people expect.

Perhaps I may ask one further question. Looking at the next two and a half years, are the Government able to accept that it is vital that we solve the problem of slot allocation if any of this action is to be a success?

My Lords, we welcome the generous comments of the noble Baroness about the pressure by this country in respect of these matters. I can absolutely assure her that we shall keep up that pressure. We have been leading, and will continue to lead, in the field to bring about the maximum degree of liberalisation which will lead to a free, fair and open competitive market in aviation.

On the second part of the noble Baroness's question, at the Council the Commission said that it would be bringing forward proposals for slot allocation by September of this year.

My Lords, I think that the House will be pleased with the exhaustive statement that the noble Baroness has made. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, raised in her Question an important point about denied boarding compensation to which I hope the Government will pay attention. I believe that the noble Baroness spoke in general terms about denied boarding compensation with regard to regular passengers. I hope that the Government will consider not only passengers on scheduled flights but those on chartered flights who are unable to board a plane because it is overbooked. For such passengers the situation may be even more serious when it affects their fortnight's holiday than for those regular travellers who can always catch the next scheduled flight.

My Lords, the proposals on denied boarding compensation will be issued for consultation and we shall hear more about them.

Chartered flights are not subject to these measures because chartered flying is a freer, fairer and more open market. However, I note the cautionary remarks of the noble Lord and will pass them on to the departments.

My Lords, I forgot to ask the Minister this question. Can she give us the date of the next Council meeting? I believe that she said a statement will be made by the Commission in September. Will that be before, at or after the Council meeting?

My Lords, I cannot be precise about the date. However, I believe that there is a Council meeting in July, but that of course will be too early for this set of proposals. Therefore, the matter will be dealt with at a meeting much closer to the September date.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the responsibility for enforcing speed limits rests with individual chief officers of police. The enforcement of any particular law is for them to determine in the light of other police commitments.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the speed limits on motorways are held in utter contempt today? Will the Government consider urgent legislation to reduce those speeds and make the motorways safer places?

My Lords, I am fully aware that a great number of people exceed the speed limits on motorways, and no doubt noble Lords make a contribution. It is for chief police officers to decide how to deploy their forces. The motorways of the United Kingdom carry 15 per cent. of the traffic, but only 2 per cent. of all accidents occur on motorways. In international comparisons, the United Kingdom motorways are among the safest.

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the chief difficulty regarding speed on motorways lies with contraflows, with the lethal M.25 and with repair works? I recognise what he says and appreciate the fact that the police force must decide for itself on the best use of manpower. However, cannot cameras be used on the motorways with much more effect in order to ascertain speed? Would it not also be useful for those cameras to be advertised so that they are a deterrent as well as a source for conviction?

My Lords, for a moment I thought that my powers of hearing were going. I thought the noble Lord was suggesting that we use candles. I then thought he was referring to camels! I then realised that the word was "cameras".

The noble Lord is perfectly correct: there is a possibility of using such weapons. The White Paper The Road User and the Law published on 7th February set out the Government's proposals to allow the use of automatic detection devices for speeding and traffic offences, and legislation to implement those will be introduced when the parliamentary timetable permits.

My Lord, does my noble friend agree that one of the ways in which he could meet the point in the noble Viscount's Question is to consider setting the speed limit at a slightly more realistic level in these days of much improved roads and much safer and improved motor cars? Many people —I have to admit that I am one—find excessive difficulty in maintaining the statutory speed limit of 70 miles per hour. A slightly more realistic level might contribute towards solving this difficulty and might be respected by more people.

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend admits to his failings in obeying the speed limits. However, it is a point that is constantly produced. The 70 miles per hour speed limit strikes a balance between fast, convenient travel and safety. The average motorways speeds, according to the national speed survey of 1987, were 65 mph for cars, 59 mph for buses and coaches and 54 mph for lorries. My noble friend may be surprised at those figures but apparently they are correct.

My Lords, the noble Earl stated that only 2 per cent. of accidents occur on motorways. Can he tell the House what percentage of our roads have motorway status?

No, my Lords, I cannot.

My Lords, my noble friend said that action is up to the chief constables of the local areas concerned. I completely understand that. However, I ask myself, and perhaps I may ask him, why the local chief constables and the local police authorities cannot correct the signs which are put up to indicate local building works. One sees notices of hazards one mile ahead, or which indicate that there is a 50 mph speed limit in operation or perhaps a speed restriction of 30 mph. But as one drives along there is no evidence of anything happening and the signs eventually peter out. Does the Minister consider that that is a direct inducement for people to get fed up with obeying instructions which on the face of it have importance and to which they would pay much more attention if they were told why they were there?

My Lords, perhaps I may answer my noble friend by saying that that is a question which I ask myself. I agree with him.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the United States a speed limit of 55 mph is in force on all turnpike roads and that it is enforced without difficulty by the employment of a special traffic corps of policemen, many of whom ride motor cycles? Is it not the case that the law in this country will not be enforced in that area until we do the same?

My Lords, I do not think that in fact that is so. About 8 per cent. of our police force is engaged specifically on traffic work. A number of other officers become involved in traffic work in the course of carrying out their responsibilities. In 1987 35 states in the United States decided to raise the speed limits on rural interstate highways from 55 mph to 65 mph, with the result that road deaths increased by 16 per cent.

My Lords, despite the figures that the Minister has just given for speed limits, does he agree that virtually everyone knows that some of the worst offenders are heavy lorries which belt along the motorways, even in wet weather such as we have today, at 70 mph, 75 mph and sometimes even 80 mph? Does he further agree that those lorries constitute an increasing hazard to ordinary motorists? Will the Government reconsider their attitude and insist on legislation to introduce speed limiters in order to keep lorries down to the permitted speed of 60 mph on motorways?

My Lords, if we were to produce legislation to ensure that lorries kept to the correct speed, we should have to ensure that motor cars did so as well. As I explained, it is a matter of enforcement. Police officers have to carry out enforcement as best they can. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it is a great hazard when one finds oneself behind a lorry, as he puts it, belting along the motorway at 80 mph with water flying all over the place.

My Lords, I believe that I spoke of speed limiters. I am not sure whether the Minister understood exactly what I meant. I was referring to fitting speed governors in the same way as we have on coaches.

My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to a mechanical device which prevents equipment from going faster than it should do, that is an idea which I shall consider.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that those who use the motorways a great deal are aware of one remarkable situation? One is aware that speeds are being excessively abused; suddenly a police car appears and every vehicle slows down. Would it not be possible for the Government to inquire of a cross-section of chief constables whose areas include the great motorways whether it would be of any help to have more police vehicles on the road, as their presence acts as a deterrent to anyone intending to break the law?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. That is why chief constables and police authorities are always coming to me asking for more men to deal with road traffic offences and every other kind of criminal activity. I agree with him that the presence of a police vehicle makes a great deal of difference. However, I give him one warning: some police forces operate vehicles which are not evidently police cars and the noble Lord may get caught out one day!

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the majority of member states of the European Community apply a substantially lower speed limit to heavy goods vehicles and coaches than we apply in this country? Is he aware that in fact there is a proposal on the table of transport Ministers which envisages just such an approach? What is the Government's current attitude to that proposal, which apparently would receive the support of no less a person than my noble friend Lord Stoddart, who is not normally an advocate of European legislation?

My Lords, it does not surprise me that such support comes from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, but views to the contrary might come from many vehicle owners and operators. Certainly the matter will be considered.

My Lords, I should like to follow up the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I do not agree with him on all issues but I do on this one. What would be the noble Earl's advice. to a motorist proceeding at approximately 70 mph in the outer lane when overtaken in the middle lane by a great lorry thundering along at nearly 80 mph and throwing up a great spray? Should that motorist go to 85 mph to overtake the lorry or not?

My Lords, it is interesting to hear the noble Lord in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. That event will have to go down in one of the annals of history. The answer to his question is that the motorist in the right-hand lane doing 70 mph ought to have been in the left-hand lane in order to allow others to overtake him should they wish to break the Law.

My Lords, does the Minister wish to have that remark go on record in Hansard without any proviso at all?

The proviso, my Lords, is that anyone who is driving along a motorway is obliged to use the inside lane primarily, the middle lane for overtaking and the third lane for overtaking after that. Drivers are not permitted under the law to hog the outside lane.

My Lords, from what the noble Earl said I was under the impression that we should make a contribution and move over to allow those who want to break the law in this island to do so. Did he really mean that?

My Lords, the noble Lord knows perfectly well that the regulations and motorway practice require one to use the inside lane other than when one desires to overtake. It is no defence to drive in the outside lane without any intention of moving over to the inside lane.

My Lords, did I hear correctly that the noble Earl mentioned the raising of speed limits in certain states in the United States and accompanied his remarks with the information that following the raising of speed limits the number of accidents also increased? If so, is that not an answer to those who would like to raise the speed limits in this country? Does he agree that it is an indication that we should lower the speed limit on motorways in this country both for safety and for more efficient use of petrol?

My Lords, I was trying to explain to the House, if the experience of the United States was anything to go by, that when they raised the speed limit from 55 mph to 65 mph, the number of accidents increased by 16 per cent. If that experience were repeated on motorways in Britain, 42 more people would be killed. That is why we think it appropriate to keep the level as it is. The noble Lord would like to lower the limit. I presume that if we lowered it to 10 mph very few people would be killed.

My Lords, there are two more Questions to come. I know that it may not seem very equitable, but perhaps I may suggest that the noble Viscount, who has been trying to speak for some while, asks one more supplementary question and then we move on to the next one.

My Lords, it is a well known and understood fact that an increase in speed increases the risk of an accident. Presumably that is why we have speed limits. It is well known that heavy goods vehicles cause a lot of accidents. I understand that coaches will have mandatory governors fitted next year. Why cannot heavy goods vehicles have governors fitted also?

My Lords, the question of whether governors are fitted to different kinds of vehicles falls outside the scope of this Question. If the noble Viscount wishes to ask a specific question on that matter, then I shall try to answer it.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the abstraction of water from bore-holes—like any other abstraction of inland water—is subject to the approval of full consideration of the environmental and water resource implications. It is up to individual water companies to decide how they want to obtain water. The Anglian Water Company obtains some 50 per cent. of its supplies from groundwater.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Noting the extremely high percentage of water which the Anglian Water Company derives from bore-holes—I believe it to be the highest of any company —does he not agree that water derived from bore-holes is much more damaging in conservation terms than that derived from reservoirs because of the long-term depletion of the water table? Is he also aware that that company has dug a further 30 bore-holes in the past nine months and boasts of having no intention of building a reservoir for 20 years? Will he ask the National Rivers Authority to suggest to the Anglian Water Company that it should not be permitted to dig more bore-holes until it announces a programme of reservoir construction?

My Lords, I am more than happy to concur with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with regard to the 30 bore-holes. It is important that we should remind ourselves that water is water above or below the ground. It is all very well for the noble Lord to suggest that we should ask the Anglian Water Company to consider the construction of reservoirs. I am sure that he is aware of the excitement caused by the construction of Rutland Water. That raised environmental problems which many would consider are just as great above ground as below it.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of growing anxiety throughout East Anglia at the effect of the high level of abstraction from underground aquifers? Will he invite the National Rivers Authority to publish regular statistics which show the current state of our aquifers and the proposed rate of decline or increase so that we know what we are talking about?

My Lords, the National Rivers Authority's job is to ensure that abstractions are permitted only if they are sustainable and do not cause unacceptable environmental damage. Water table levels in East Anglia are at a low level after two very dry winters. However, they are not at historically low levels.

My Lords, I was unaware that 30 new bore-holes had been drilled. Can the noble Lord say whether the recent abrupt decline in the water table in Norfolk can be attributed to that action on the part of the Anglian Water Company?

My Lords, the present low levels are due to low rainfall during the past two winters.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the great drought of 1976 the record of the Anglian Water Authority, as it then was, in the management of its water resources was quite outstanding? It was able to maintain supplies despite great difficulties. The area relies on a high proportion of groundwater supplies, the countryside being very flat and reservoirs a difficult proposition. Is my noble friend aware that the implication in this Question is not justified?

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nugent brings to the attention of your Lordships' House two important points: first, that in the 1976 drought the greatest problems were found by those authorities which depended more on reservoirs than on bore-holes; and secondly, that East Anglia is very flat and, as a result, the attraction of reservoirs less than in other areas.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that water extraction is clearly affecting the habitats and, therefore, survival of some uncommon plants? My husband, who is a botanist, tells me that a sedge, carex appropinquata, is vanishing from East Anglia where, some time ago, it was in quite good supply —no doubt because of the water abstraction?

My Lords, the biggest influence on the level of the water table is the level of rainfall and not abstraction. Where I live there are no bore-holes at all but the water table has fallen precipitately, entirely due to the low level of rainfall.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that quite a number of rivers in England and Wales are seriously depleted for a variety of reasons? Is he satisfied that the National Rivers Authority has sufficient teeth to grip that problem?

My Lords, the National Rivers Authority is well aware that it has a duty as regards over-abstraction affecting river flows and at present is studying 20 rivers in that respect.

My Lords, is the Minister sure of his statement that rainfall is the cause of the low water levels? About 30 years ago I wanted to build a bore-hole and the water authority in my area refused permission because the number of bore-holes had permanently lowered the water tables in that area?

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is aware of the number of abstraction licences and their amount of use and of the counterpart to his argument; namely, that the water table in London is rising due to the reduction of industry over a long period.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, it is doubtful whether a new Channel Tunnel rail link would have any significant effect on Kent's roads. It is additional passenger capacity, not additional freight capacity, which British Rail thinks will be necessary and for which the new link is envisaged. In the passenger market British Rail expects to be competing mainly with air services.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather disappointing reply. Despite the discussions which took place in the other place last week, I make no apology for leaving this Question on the Order Paper. It is a matter of the greatest economic importance to the whole country and there is always time for second thoughts. Have the Government considered the implications of the flood of freight lorries which will pour on to the roads of Kent? Apart from the likely congestion, how does the emission of large quantities of diesel fumes and carbon dioxide line up with the Government's so-called green policies?

My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, the Government do not expect the amount of lorries in Kent to increase substantially. In addition to what my noble friend said, the Government have a large programme of road improvements under way in Kent; for example, on the M.20, the A.20, the M.2, the A.2, the A.259, the A.261, the M.25 and many local roads.

My Lords, the Minister's reply is rather surprising. He must know that something like 16 million additional passengers will be using lines in Kent which are among the most congested in the world. Many commuters are bound to be forced on to what are already inadequate roads in trying to reach their destinations by car. Have the Government fully explored the statement by the European Commissioner on 4th June that there could be financial assistance from the Commission for a rail link if the UK Government applied for it? Does he not think that a link will be ultimately required? Would it not be a good idea to pursue the possibility of outside finance from Europe and to get started on a link that will ultimately be essential?

My Lords, with regard to commuters being neglected, the answer is no. Investment in Network SouthEast is currently the highest since the change from steam to diesel in the early 1960s. As regards EC funding, the noble Lord is right. There has been an offer of EC funding but that in no way makes up the difference in cost.

My Lords, will the Minister explain, further to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cross, how the Government's policy —or lack of policy —in relation to the rail link is consonant with the commitment the Government entered into in the Single European Act that environmental considerations should be an essential component of all other policies, including transport policies?

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's final point, the Government are committed to environmental policies. I should explain that the joint venture requires £500 million of subsidy for commuters; for British Rail to spend up to £400 million on new terminals, and for a low-interest deferred loan of £1 billion which, in the case of default, would rank below other creditors.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Rail has put forward three or four schemes which have blighted many areas in Kent? Is he also aware that British Rail has bought many homes in north Kent, and that many people in Kent are unable to sell their properties and move out due to the lack of certainty that exists? The present lack of decision reflects no credit on the Government or indeed on British Rail. The whole set-up is a shambles and a disgrace.

My Lords, it is up to British Rail to bring forward new schemes which meet the Government's criteria. In answer to the noble Lord's second point, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has powers under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order to require local planning authorities not to approve applications for planning permission which would interfere with the proposed new line. Regarding the noble Lord's final point, adequate compensation measures are in place.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Oilseeds Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1990, the Second Reading of the Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill and the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That this House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Hesketh.)

moved Amendment No. 132:

Page 28, line 3, at beginning insert:

("( ) This Part shall have effect for the purposes of reducing pollution to the environment from the treatment, keeping, transport, deposit or disposal of controlled waste, and for the improvement in the standards of such activities by bodies to which this Part relates, including any companies formed under section 31(2) below").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 132 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 149. These amendments are necessary due to the profound failings in the arrangements the Government have made regarding the relationship between local authorities which have responsibility under Part II of the Bill and the LAWDCs —the waste disposal contractors—and also because of the inadequacy of the provision for the LAWDCs.

The starting point for our discussion should be consideration of the total size of the waste management industry. We should take account of the relationship between the public and the private sector in that industry; the effect of the Bill and the higher standards—for which we should be thankful—that it will impose on waste management, on its costs and therefore on the size of the industry. We should also consider the Government's motivation for implementing those changes and what action should be taken in that regard.

The size of the waste management industry in this country is difficult to estimate. The best estimates are that its value in turnover terms is between £500 million and £1·5 billion. The public sector probably represents one-third of that amount. Estimating the effect on costs of the proposals is even more difficult. We start from a dubious point and are attempting to estimate the effect of something which has not yet become legislation. Our best estimate is that it will approximately triple the cost. We therefore end up with a value for the public sector waste management industry of between £500 million and £1·5 billion.

The Government's motivation for implementing the Bill is very clear. They are looking for a further opportunity for privatisation. Are the arrangements which they are making for privatisation satisfactory, and will they produce the results that the Government want?

The first problem to which Amendment No. 132 relates is the inadequate definition of what are the purposes of reducing pollution in the environment. That definition is inadequate in Clause 29 and also when we come to the companies formed under Clause 31. The main problem to which Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 are addressed is that local authorities do not have control of the waste disposal contractors. They are restricted by legislation from forming more than 20 per cent. of the management boards. Yet the local authority waste disposal contractors are in their turn restricted from raising capital except at the expense of other local authority expenditure.

That is the thrust of the amendments and why we believe the arrangements proposed are unsatisfactory. It means that if waste disposal contractors are to engage in capital expenditure—which may be significant because it is a capital intensive industry when one is comtemplating setting up new sites for disposal —local authorities will lose the capital authorisation for all the other schemes which may be thought, under the relevant heading of capital expenditure, to be competing with it. Waste disposal contractors will be severely tempted to opt for revenue expenditure rather than capital expenditure and therefore to take the less satisfactory economic and business option.

Waste disposal contractors may not be able to work as effectively as they should because they are restricted by the capital controls, but also because many of them will be small. They will relate to the areas of single local authorities and will have to compete with contracts for individual sites. If they lose the contract for the nearest site, bearing in mind that the economics of the business depend on how close one is to the disposal site, the result will be an unsatisfactory, uneconomic and unbusinesslike approach to waste disposal management.

Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 seek to remove the capital controls on LAWDCs in order to allow them to make proper business decisions, and to ensure that they have adequate responsibilities, powers and relationships with local government to do their job properly. I beg to move.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should be thanked for putting forward an amendment which states the intention of Part II. Some noble Lords may know that I am very much in favour of purpose clauses. This amendment will help to interpret the fairly lengthy and complicated provisions of Part II of the Bill. It gives a clear indication of what those clauses are about and the purposes that they have in mind. Therefore, as I said, that will have the advantage of aiding interpretation.

I cannot see any disadvantage in having this amendment although I must say that I do not think it is necessary to have the last few words:

"including any companies formed under section 31(2) below".

I listened to what the noble Lord said about that but I rather doubt whether it is necessary to single out that particular provision which refers to the companies that the Secretary of State may assist to get established. With that proviso I somewhat favour this amendment and it will be interesting to hear what my noble friends on the Front Bench have to say about it.

The subject of waste has attracted increasing public interest and concern over the past few years. It is no coincidence that it occupies the largest single part of the Bill. I confidently expect a high standard of debate from many noble Lords who have laboured so unremittingly over recent years on scrutinising our waste policies on your Lordships' Select Committees, the Royal Commission, and elsewhere. The first debate on Part II of the Bill provides an excellent opportunity for us to consider the purposes and the underlying thrust of the measures on waste management.

Amendment No. 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, offers one suggested statement of the purpose of Part II. I would, perhaps with only a subjective difference of viewpoint, approach these measures from a slightly different angle. It may assist the Committee if I set out in some depth what that viewpoint is so that we may all approach the detailed provisions of Part II with a better understanding of the Government's general approach.

The provisions of Part II are not mainly about reducing pollution; nor are they directly about improving standards. By that I mean that we do not have a series of clauses dealing with each particular waste problem and saying what should be done with it. Instead, we are setting out an enabling framework through the regulatory and control regimes for the duties and discretionary powers put upon authorities and individuals. We are building and setting in motion the mechanisms which will raise standards and reduce, or where possible eliminate, pollution. The provisions of Part II are more the stage machinery rather than the performance. We have a plot, we are providing the props and casting the actors. Their detailed lines will be issued in regulations and advice, but the play itself will be acted out only by implementation and enforcement in the field.

An obvious example may make this clearer. We have firm and unequivocal policies on the operation and the care of waste disposal sites. There is detailed technical guidance in waste management papers issued by the department. That advice is updated with technical advances. However, the approach of Part II is not to lay down targets, objectives or prescriptions for landfill sites on the face of the Bill. Instead we are giving the waste regulatory authorities increased powers to raise standards themselves by the conditions they attach to licences in individual local circumstances, by their enforcement of those conditions and in the much tougher long-term responsibilities of licence holders themselves. In addition, we are reforming the authorities to ensure that they use their powers effectively. It is by the use of these powers that pollution will be minimised and standards enforced.

In the case of this amendment the Opposition invite us to subscribe to the objectives of reducing pollution and improving standards. The Government certainly endorse both those objectives. However, I am not at all convinced that the statement is comprehensive or correct. For example, the list of activities covered does not include the production of waste, about which the Opposition are clearly concerned in their amendments promoting waste minimisation. On the other hand, the list includes the transport of waste, which is not any part of the controls in this part or this Bill but is effectively covered by transport legislation. Nor am I happy with the list of bodies whose standards are to be improved; it is not at all clear to me that as drafted it includes the full list of persons subject to the duty of care. Are all such persons bodies? This is not nit-picking; and I say that advisedly, bearing in mind the remarks that my noble friend Lord Renton made earlier.

The risk of a general declaratory clause is that it may confuse or even prejudice the interpretation of specific powers. If the specific provision of Part II were not within the purpose of this clause there would be some risk of casting doubt on that provision. As the couple of small examples I have just given show, it is very difficult to draft a single sweeping declaration that fully and accurately covers the variety of purposes served by the wide range of powers in this part of the Bill.

I have to say that, quite apart from any deficiencies of detail in the amendment, I cannot see that such a general declaration adds anything to the specific provisions of Part II. Let us stick to saying in each clause what we wish to happen in detail and let each clause stand to be interpreted on its own, subject to the specific interpretations provided in this clause and Clauses 71 and 72.

The Government's own purpose in Part II is clear —to create a system of control and regulation which will deliver reliable environmental protection against pollution from waste. On that test the provisions of these clauses stand to be judged.

Amendment No. 148, taken with Amendment No. 149, would have the effect of removing arm's length status from LAWDCs, leaving them as wholly-owned subsidiaries of their controlling authorities. One of the fundamental principles of this part of the Bill is the separation of waste disposal operations from regulation. For this separation to be properly achieved it is vital that LAWDCs should operate at arm's length so that the company is run as a genuinely independent financial concern. By operation at arm's length, the LAWDC will be subject to the full effects of the market rather than being protected by the controlling authority.

There are also certain advantages to be gained. For example, the LAWDC will be free to invite a contractor of its choice to carry out a particular function on its behalf rather than being bound by the competitive tendering regulations that apply to a controlled local authority company. Also, its board meetings will be exempt from certain rules applying to local authority meetings.

Amendment No. 148 would also make it a function of LAWDCs to secure the reduction of pollution of the environment in their handling and disposal of waste. I cannot see that it is necessary to impose such a function on LAWDCs. They will operate their sites in accordance with the terms of their waste management licences, and those licences will contain the full range of conditions to reduce environmental pollution. It will be for regulation authorities to enforce the higher standards we all now expect. LAWDCs will also be operating under the terms of contracts let by disposal authorities who will be required to take account of environmental factors when awarding contracts. It is for those reasons that we resist the amendments.

Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies perhaps I may just acknowledge that my noble friend —I am speaking only in relation to Amendment No. 132 —has given reasons which I must say had not occurred to me and may not have occurred to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for thinking that this statement of purpose in Amendment No. 132 is not wide enough to cover the various provisions of this part to which the amendment relates.

My noble friend gave a great deal of detail in support of that proposition. Speaking for myself, I would prefer to study that rather lengthy statement before having to reach a conclusion on this amendment at this stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel that the wisest course to take is to study the matter further.

I have been deprived of the opportunity of saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his support. For very understandable reasons his support has now been withdrawn.

There are two reasons why I cannot take his advice. The first relates to the specific point which he first raised; that is, the need for a purpose definition at the very beginning of a part of the Bill. I shall come to that point when I deal with the second reason why in Amendment No. 132 we refer specifically to companies formed under Clause 31(2).

I have no difficulty with the comment made by the Minister about,

"improvement in the standards of such activities by bodies to which this Part relates".

It is intended that we should be talking about improvement in the standards of such activities by all the bodies to which this part of the Bill refers. If the Minister is suggesting that these bodies have different kinds of status —some being public authorities and others being private persons or companies —then I suggest to the Committee that the word "bodies" acts perfectly well to cover them all.

The only other point of any significance which the Minister made about the wording in Amendment No. 132 and therefore in Amendment No. 148, was the omission concerning the production of waste in the environment. It may be that my understanding of Part II of the Bill is defective. It seemed that when it comes to the production of waste the provisions in that part of the Bill are very different from those of waste management. The bulk of Part II refers to management which is the,

"treatment, keeping, transport, deposit or disposal of controlled waste".

To that extent I am content that my purposive amendment should refer to the management of waste rather than to the production.

There was one further objection that the Minister raised and that was to the use of the word "transport". He said that the transport of waste was a matter for transport legislation and should not be covered by this Bill. The debate in Committee on Tuesday made it clear that it in our view that is not the case. The transport of waste should be covered by this Bill. We have tabled subsequent amendments to secure that end. The carrying of this amendment now would make it easier for us to argue as regards our subsequent amendments that the transport of waste should be included in this part of the Bill.

The more important aspect to which I refer is the role of the waste disposal companies in Part II of the Bill. As the Minister quite clearly described, we have a series of provisions for dealing with waste on land. Then we have spatchcocked into the middle of that a proposal that is not justified by any other part of the Bill for, as he described it, a move towards waste disposal companies; —in other words, a move away from the activities of local authorities and a move towards arm's length companies.

It is that introduction of a totally different political objective into the environmental objective of Part II of the Bill to which we object most strongly. We do so for reasons that are very well known. They were rehearsed at length when we dealt with the Local Government and Housing Bill in 1989. We believe that these arm's length companies are an uneasy compromise between the public and private sectors. They do not achieve the objectives of full privatisation and the virtues that there might be from that if accompanied by liberalisation and freedom of effective business management. Nor do these companies achieve the objective of being properly co-ordinated with the activities of local authorities themselves.

I have not heard an adequate answer from the Minister to the use of the compulsory competitive tendering procedure. He referred to that dismissively as though it were not the Government's own idea. He said that it is not satisfactory for the purpose of Part II of the Bill. Having set out the CCT procedure, I should have thought that the Government would be anxious to find an opportunity to use it. Instead they Choose to set up an arm's length relationship which is fatally flawed; first, by the fact that it does not include freedom of capital expenditure —and therefore cannot make the proper decisions —and, secondly, because the size and the nature of operations of these arm's length companies is not satisfactory for fully privatised operations. It is that uneasy compromise which makes it necessary for us to refer to the companies formed under Clause 31(2), to use the wording of Amendment No. 132. It is because Clause 31 is ill-at-ease with the remainder of Part II of the Bill that we have to repeat those objectives in Amendment No. 148 to make sure that they apply to the companies set up under Clause 31. In addition, that is why in Amendment No. 149 to Schedule 2 we have to remove the reference to arm's length companies. The objectives of Part II of the Bill are well understood and have been widely accepted in Committee.

Be it not for me to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am always more than happy to listen to his erudite words. One thing I can promise him is that privatisation was never any part of the concept of what we are trying to do here. We are trying to separate regulation and operation. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember that it is almost exactly 12 months ago that we were dealing with Part V of a previous Bill that came before this Chamber. We were pointing out the differentials with regard to capital control. The underlying principle is regulation, operation and separation; it has nothing to do with privatisation.

I accept that that is in the Government's mind. However, I have to look at the effect of what the Government are saying in the Bill. It may well be that their intention is to set out the difference between regulation and operation. The fact of the matter is that the Bill produces companies which are at arm's length yet which are subject to the capital controls imposed on local authorities as a whole. Therefore, they are inextricably linked in a most unsatisfactory and comprised way with the finances of local authorities.

It is that unsatisfactory compromise to which we object. It is for that reason that we feel that Part II of the Bill is gravely damaged by the provisions of Clause 31. That damage has to be eliminated right at the outset in the way in which we set forward the purposes of Part II of the Bill. It is not that we are unsympathetic to the Bill as a whole, but we think that the Government themselves are shooting Part II of the Bill in the foot by the provisions that they have put forward for the formation of the waste disposal companies. It is for that reason that we believe the Committee should be advised to take out the offending parts and to clarify the purposes of the Bill.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 133 to 137:

Page 28, line 5, after first ("of") insert ("—(a)").

Page 28, line 5, leave out ("media") and insert ("elements").

Page 28, line 6, at end insert:

("(b) the natural environment subsisting in or supported by those elements; or

(c) the physical environment of buildings or other natural or man made structures above, or below ground.").

Page 28, line 8, leave out ("any environmental medium") and insert ("the environment").

Page 28, line 13, at end insert ("or(e) any other source").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 133 to 137, 140 and 141 cover ground very similar to that which we covered in Part I of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in replying, gave quite an interesting response to our amendments, I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I did not move them.

moved Amendment No. 138:

Page 28, line 18, after ("plant") insert ("vehicles").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 138 is a little different. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, gave an interesting reply to the amendment but he was in my view wrong. I must therefore raise the matter again.

On Tuesday, 19th June the noble Lord said that the Bill is not concerned with controls on vehicles for transporting waste. He said:

"That is already the responsibility of the Department of Transport".—[Official Report, 19/6/90; col. 782.]

That is not a satisfactory way to deal with waste management. It does not make any sense if we go anywhere near to accepting the purpose of Part II as proposed in the previous amendment, the provisions of which, with some exceptions, were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Those who are responsible for the reduction, the treatment, the keeping, the deposit and the disposal of controlled waste are frequently also responsible for the transport of waste. The idea that one should go from one set of provisions for all the other aspects to transport legislation for the transport of waste and then out of transport legislation again for the disposal of waste is a legislative nonsense. It demonstrates what we have always said about environmental legislation; namely, that the terms of reference of the Department of the Environment alone are simply not satisfactory to deal with all of the problems of the environment—problems which this Bill ought to be tackling.

In the Bill we have the absurd position that mobile plant is covered only when the mobile plant is itself treating waste as it moves or as it sits at the origin or destination of its journey. If the plant is not treating the waste it is not covered, although it could be a virtually identical piece of plant. One can think of it as a readymix concrete lorry which turns concrete as it moves, using power take-off from the engine. If it happens not be treating the waste it is not covered by the Bill; it is covered by totally separate legislation. It may be, though I very much doubt it, that transport legislation is adequate for the purpose. But even if it were the case that transport legislation was good enough, it would be an intolerable burden to ask those who had responsibility for the treatment of waste to be familiar with two completely separate sets of provisions in order to understand their obligations. I must say to the Government that departmental responsibilities have led them very badly astray in this connection and that Amendment No. 138 ought to be included in the Bill.

I ask my noble friends to give some serious consideration to this matter. I do not know what the response will be, but I recall that a Select Committee of this place chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, about 12 years ago, dealt with the disposal of toxic waste. I seem to remember—although I have not reread the report —that one of the greatest matters of concern at that time, and one which remains a matter of great concern today, was the transportation of waste. It was found that at that point the whole chain broke down. There were no regulations in force at that time. It may well be that the disposal authority concerned will have to transport such materials. However, this matter will be dealt with later this afternoon in respect of authorities in Wales where the disposal point is, possibly, at least 80 miles.

Therefore, it seems to me that it would not be unreasonable to provide that the transportation of waste of whatever kind and in whatever vehicle, whether it be the concrete-mixer type of vehicle—and that leads on to the argument about whether it is considered to be a vehicle—should come within the ambit of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has explained the reasons for this amendment very well. I should just like to add my support to what he said and also the support of all those who sit on these Benches.

These two amendments seek to introduce controls on the transport of waste through a definitional clause which deals with the treatment of waste by mobile plant. The mobile plant is designed to treat or dispose of waste, but it may be moved from site to site or for example from factory to factory, where waste is produced. The factory will still require planning permission to operate a mobile plant. We hope that this measure will facilitate the environmentally friendly management of waste, expecially in its recycling, which may well be most easily carried out by peripatetic means.

This provision is most emphatically not about licensing the transport of waste by local authorities, which is what the amendment seeks to turn it into. The transport of waste is controlled by the same Department of Transport legislation as the transport of any other material. The operator must be licensed under the Transport Acts whatever material he is carrying and the operator licensing system will control the standard of his vehicle and the training of the driver. Regulations cover the transport of dangerous waste in exactly the same way as they cover the transport of any other dangerous material. There is no need to duplicate those requirements in pollution control legislation.

Further, it should not fall to local authorities to operate any vehicle licensing controls. Local authorities have no locus in transport licensing and no experience of it. That is not to denigrate the authorities in any way; but it must be accepted that the world of transport is very different from the world of licensing waste disposal facilities. As there is already a well-established system of licensing transport undertakings, I can see no reason whatever for setting up a whole new system to duplicate it at local authority level.

The real issue is to ensure that the fly-tippers cannot continue to operate or to find business for their illegal activities. That is the purpose of the duty of care provision contained in Clause 33 which we shall be discussing at a later stage. The registration of waste carriers is provided for in the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, which I discussed at some length with the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, last year. Any carrier who commits a waste-related offence can be removed from the register. It will then be a breach of the duty of care provision for any waste producer or holder to hand over such waste to him. A waste producer who does so will be liable to prosecution. The combined system of duty of care, and the registration of carriers, provides the necessary controls over the people who carry waste. It is for the Department of Transport to control how the waste is carried.

Finally, I think that one also has to look at the two amendments from the view of the Department of Transport and other departments. I say that because essentially the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is asking for a level of supremacy for a cause rather than practical experience in operation. That is the fundamental difference in terms of the carrying out of the operations with the best endeavor by those professionals who are best suited to do so. That is why we resist these amendments.

I have two problems with that argument. First, perhaps I should point out that I did not in fact speak to Amendment No. 139 because it was spoken to when we dealt with Amendment No. 1 on Tuesday. I was proposing not to move that amendment. The argument put forward in some detail by the noble Lord for his case that the Department of Transport legislation already adequately covers the problems which we have identified, only goes part of the way towards relieving my concerns. I made clear that I was not certain that transport legislation was adequate for the purpose. However, even if I had been certain that it was adequate for the purpose, I would still think that this provision ought to be included in the Bill.

I am confirmed in that view by legislation to which the Minister did not refer; namely, the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 which passed through both Chambers. As noble Lords will recall, that legislation was concerned with fly-tipping. Clearly it would not have gone through without at least the tacit concurrence of the Government, although I know that they were not happy about some aspects of the legislation. Nevertheless, it went through. The Act said that part of the controls to be exercised by the Department of the Environment in order to ensure that we do not have waste material illegally deposited on vacant sites, especially in our big cities, is that there should be a control over the carriers by way of registration.

If the Government were determined to hold the line against that principle, they ought to have had the courage to oppose the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill when it was before this Chamber. However, they did not do so; they accepted the Bill and then failed to introduce the regulations which would give effect to it. I call that having the worst of both worlds. I call that acknowledging to us the justice of the case which we are now making—because they really cannot go against what was accepted last year at this late stage—and failing to relieve the very legitimate concerns which many noble Lords and many Members of another place, including, especially, my honourable friend Ms. Joan Ruddock who introduced the Bill, felt about the scourge of fly-tipping which affects our cities and particularly our inner cities.

The problem of waste management is one which is primarily the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Those who are engaged in this aspect of waste management, both legitimately and illegitimately, ought to be under the control of a single coherent body of legislation. The Bill does not provide a single and coherent body of legislation. The Government have acknowledged the principle and I fail to understand why they object to its rational extension in the amendment which we have put forward. However, I shall happily give way to the Minister if he has any further information to give us on the matter. Unfortunately, that seems not to be the case.

I have. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh —I hope that the word "insinuated" is not too harsh —insinuated that the Government, having been in receipt of the Act, were not going to do anything about it. The registration of carriers is a government proposal which was taken forward in a Private Member's Bill, as the noble Lord pointed out. Regulations are being prepared and will be consulted upon soon. The Government have no intention of not implementing the Act. As always, there are problems involved in producing the required results. If it requires a little longer to ensure that the regulations work, that is no bad thing. The Government are fully committed to the implementation of the measure, and are not in any way avoiding their responsibilities.

In those circumstances, the word "insinuated" was incorrectly used by the Minister. I said nothing about the Government's intention. I said that they had not introduced the regulations, and that is all I said. It has been a long time since the Bill was passed in the last Session. I am not aware that the regulations have even gone out for consultation yet. The passage of time may reflect the detailed and sympathetic thought, but it is much more likely to reflect putting the measure on to the back burner.

The fact that the Minister acknowledges that the Government agree with the principle of the registration of carriers throws away the rest of his case and strengthens our case for including the transport of waste with the rest of waste management legislation. I seek the opinion of the Committee on this amendment.

moved Amendment No. 142:

Page 28, line 44, at end insert:

("(12) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) waste from a mine or quarry which is not excavation waste; and

(b) waste from agricultural premises which is not agricultural material,

shall be treated as industrial waste").

The noble Lord said: As the amendment indicates, we are concerned about gaps which could open up in genuine, sensible and acceptable legislation. It might be of benefit to the Committee if I indicated our feelings. The premise upon which we have put down these amendments is that there could be an improvement in the best interests of the consumer and the public. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 makes provision for dealing with controlled waste. The first matter that the Committee needs to understand is the definition of "controlled waste". It is defined in Clause 30(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 as being,

"household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste".

Subsection (3)(a) states that:

"household waste consists of waste from a private dwelling or residential home or from premises forming part of a university or school or other educational establishment or forming part of a hospital or nursing home".

That is fairly comprehensive and it is easy to understand what is meant by "household waste". Under paragraph (b), industrial waste consists of,

"waste from any factory within the meaning of the Factories Act 1961 and any premises occupied by a body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or any undertaking, excluding waste from any mine or quarry".

I repeat those words,

"excluding waste from any mine or quarry".

Under paragraph (c), commercial waste consists of,

"waste from premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade or business or the purposes of sport, recreation or entertainment excluding … household and industrial waste … waste from any mine or quarry" —

I repeat that, because it is the kernel of our concern—

"waste from any mine or quarry and waste from premises used for agriculture within the meaning of the Agriculture Act 1947, or, in Scotland, the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948; and … waste of any other description prescribed for the purpose of this sub-paragraph".

The Act also provides that, if the Secretary of State considers that controlled waste of any kind is or may be so dangerous or difficult to dispose of that special provision is required, it shall be his duty to make regulations for disposal of such waste. The definition of "controlled waste" which I have read out —and that is what we are discussing in this part of the Act—specifically excludes mine or quarry waste or agricultural waste.

These are probing amendments. The Minister may correct us, but we believe that waste, for example, from a canteen in a quarry or a mine is deemed not to be controlled waste. The waste produced by factory farms is similarly not controlled. Given that the inherent characteristics of such waste have at least equal potential for pollution as have many wastes which are controlled, there is a need to ensure that it falls within legislative powers. The question is which legislative powers will control that kind of waste in those circumstances?

The Environmental Protection Bill perpetuates the lack of control over such waste. While Clause 54 would allow the Secretary of State to give directions imposing requirements in respect of waste of any specified kind, it is clearly not his intention to use this in a global fashion and to apply it, for example, to all non-excavated waste arising from mines or quarries.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the necessary controls of the waste described. If the noble Lord tells us that it can be controlled but not in this way, no one will be more satisfied than myself and those outside. It is clearly nonsense to allow a pile of rotten chicken carcases from agricultural premises to be disposed of on an unlicensed site when the same material from a butcher's shop would require a licence. Is that the position? Can the Minister tell us, if that is the position, the justification for it and what argument there could be against accepting the amendment? It is acknowledged that there may well be need for consideration to be given to waste from agricultural premises that is to be recycled or reused for agricultural purposes.

I hope that the Minister has understood the drift of what I have said. Our attention has been drawn to this primarily by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, which wishes to ensure that the burdens placed upon the users or producers of some wastes are equally carried by others. Not only from the point of view of the cost of providing the service but also because there is a genuine need, it would contribute much to the sadness and distress of the Committee if quite simple illustrations were to be produced and we found that the loophole which we believe we see was not closed. I beg to move.

Perhaps Members of the Committee would be good enough to turn to page 79 of the Bill, Clause 72(7), describing the meaning of "waste". The provision specifically excludes from "commercial waste" waste from any mine or quarry and so on. I feel that there is a slight conflict of interest on both sides of the Committee over this.

Perhaps I may help the noble Earl. We wonder why there is this exclusion, which is why we have proposed the amendment to place that kind of waste under the control of some form of legislation. It was specifically excluded and I am sure that the Minister will tell us why, as well as why that exclusion is not to the detriment of the consumer.

The noble Lord has explained fully the reasons for the amendment. I wish to add my support and that of those who sit on these Benches.

As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has explained, Amendment No. 142 is concerned with waste outside the definition of controlled waste and therefore outside the provisions of this part of the Bill. Wastes are outside these controls at present because they both have control regimes elsewhere. However, the Bill contains in Clause 60 powers to make regulations to bring such wastes under the controls of this part of the Bill if that should prove necessary in the future.

It may be helpful if I briefly outline what are the existing controls in each case. The disposal of wastes from mines and quarries is covered by controls under the Town and Country Planning Acts. The same tier of local government is responsible for granting planning permission for both mineral sites and waste disposal sites. In granting permission for a mine or quarry, the mineral planning authority would wish to be satisfied that appropriate arrangements had been made for the disposal of all types of waste likely to arise. The majority of waste from mines and quarries is inert material from the mine itself. It is quite proper that this should be simply returned to or left in its place of origin under the control of the planning permission and without the need for a waste management licence.

Regarding agricultural waste, disposal is covered by MAFF codes of practice and in most cases it is recycled as a beneficial product on to farm land as part of normal agricultural operations. However, we accept the need for appropriate statutory requirements governing the disposal of materials such as pesticides. The Ministry of Agriculture has already introduced controls in this area and the Department of the Environment is discussing with the Minister whether any further controls are needed.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me about factory farms. They would come under or fall within the definition of a factory under the Factories Act and so their waste would be industrial waste. I should also point out that subsection (2) of Clause 60, which carries forward existing provisions of the Control of Pollution Act, provides that it is an offence to dispose of any dangerous type of non-controlled waste in a manner which would be an offence if it were controlled waste. For instance, if waste pesticide were to be illegally dumped that is already an offence under Section 18 of the Control of Pollution Act and will continue to be so under the provisions of this Bill.

It is, however, quite clear that it would not be sensible to require 250,000 farms to be licensed by local authorities for the disposal of the majority of farm wastes, which are quite innocuous. Any further provision that may be needed could be introduced through the regulation-making powers in Clause 60. Such a provision could be much more flexible allowing different types of waste, different types of farm or different types of disposal method to be brought under control. We do not see an advantage in introducing a blanket provision —that would catch many things which do not need to be covered —through an amendment on the face of the Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for commenting on the illustrations that I gave. If they are not caught by the definition of controlled waste, they are controlled in some other way and under some other legislation. So far, so good. The Minister will understand that the overwhelming majority of farmers will be sensible and will set the best hygiene standards for their farm and neighbourhood. However, there will still be cases where the disposal of waste is not carried out as it should be. Fly tipping has been referred to.

I am particularly concerned about food as opposed to toxic or poisonous substances. I take the Minister's point that it may be too cumbersome to require hundreds of thousands of little businesses to be licensed in this respect. However, this matter could be dealt with in another way. I shall of course withdraw the amendments and consider the Minister's comments.

The Minister also referred to kinds of waste which are excluded from this measure. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, kindly highlighted the fact that certain kinds of waste are excluded as they are covered by other prohibitions. Perhaps the Minister is telling me that there is no need for the amendments. Many amendments from this side of the Chamber fall because there is no need for them. However, if the Minister is saying there is no need for the amendments he must explain further why there is no need for them. He has already stated that these areas are just as controlled as any other but by some other legislation.

Those people who have asked me to draw this matter to the attention of the Committee will read what has been said and decide whether the position is satisfactory. We are all motivated by the same desires as regards this Bill. There have been some sad incidents recently in respect of food and hygiene. Therefore we have an opportunity to rectify matters here which we cannot afford to miss. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. [43:

Page, 28, line 44, at end insert:

('(12) For the purposes of this Part, waste which is not controlled waste which is disposed of at a licensed facility shall be treated as controlled waste").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 143 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The amendment states:

"For the purposes of this Part, waste which is not controlled waste which is disposed of at a licensed facility shall be treated as controlled waste".

This matter refers to the second part of the question that I posed earlier. The kinds of waste which the Minister said were excluded from the provisions of Clause 72 still have to be disposed of somewhere. They have to be disposed of at a licensed site. The same rigours which are applied to controlled waste need to be applied to waste which is not controlled. The purpose of the amendment is to apply controls on the basis of whether the material is put into the system and could damage the environment rather than on the basis of its origins. The raison d'être for the existing controls on non-controlled waste is based on its origins. We seek to apply a fresh test to non-controlled waste which is based on whether the materials are put into the system and could damage the environment.

The current system of waste disposal licensing is designed to ensure the safe and effective disposal of controlled waste. Any waste which is controlled waste is thus subject to a regime which, in theory, allows for the planning of sufficient facilities to deal with the volume of waste arising in the most appropriate fashion. Therefore sufficient facilities are required to do this but there must also be information about the material which is disposed of at such facilities.

Problems arise where uncontrolled waste is submitted for disposal at a licensed waste site. While it is subject to the requisite charges to meet the cost of disposal, as I understand it, there are no requirements that it should be subject to other controls. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong on that. Such controls would detail the nature of the waste and ideally its origins. By virtue of the fact that the waste is uncontrolled, such information is not only not forthcoming but there is no onus on the handler of the waste who brings it to a site to prove that it is not controlled waste. If what we assert is the case, there is cause for concern. There is thus a loophole in the system which presents waste disposal operators and site operators with the problem of having to accept poorly documented consignments of waste.

An additional problem will arise when the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 comes into force. The provisions of that Act are, inter alia, to set up a system for the registration of carriers of controlled waste. One of the main principles behind this Act is to combat the problems caused by fly tipping, which has already been referred to.

It will be an offence under the Act, when the regulations are produced, for the unregistered carrier to handle controlled waste. The problem which arises with respect to uncontrolled waste is that there is no need for this to be carried by a licensed handler. The Minister may tell us that we have misunderstood the position, but if uncontrolled waste is carried by an unlicensed handler none of the controls covering licensed handlers, such as their bona fides as to their appropriate operating experience, will apply. The amendment seeks to ensure that any waste presented for disposal at a licensed site will be deemed controlled waste whatever its origin and nature. I hope the Minister can reassure us that our concerns are groundless or, if that is not the case, that he will deal with the matter at a later stage.

This appears to be a purely technical and drafting matter. I wonder whether the noble Lord will look at Clause 72(4) where he will find a definition of controlled waste. Clause 72(4) states:

"'Controlled waste' means household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste".

If the noble Lord wants to amend that definition, as he obviously does—he has referred to the use of that expression in Part I as a whole —may I suggest that it might have been better, instead of inserting the amendment here as a new subsection to Clause 29, to amplify subsection (4) of Clause 72. I want to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say, but for my part I am not certain that the point that the noble Lord has made needs to be dealt with at all.

Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Like the noble Lord, I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister can say to reassure us. The noble Lord will understand that the definition of controlled waste specifically excludes waste from mines, quarries and agricultural premises. The Minister has satisfied me in part that the disposal of such waste is already covered by the Factories Act and in other ways. However, it is because that waste is excluded from the definition of controlled waste that we are concerned not only about the manner in which it is disposed of but also the manner in which it is carried. In the event of what I consider the double jeopardy of uncontrolled waste being carried by unlicensed carriers, some of the safeguards that are contained in the control element will be missing.

The Minister may tell us that our fears are groundless, in which case I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. After I have done that I shall certainly join with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in seeing whether we can devise a form of words which would strengthen the protection of the consumer without necessarily weakening the provisions of the Bill.

I am very concerned about the amendment. Members of the Committee may not realise why. The first line of the amendment reads:

"For the purposes of this Part, waste which is not controlled waste".

I feel that that subjsection should read: "For the purposes of this Part, waste which is special waste".

I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended. If consideration is to be given to this matter I believe that the proposed subsection (12) should read on these lines: "For the purposes of this Part, waste which is neither controlled waste nor special waste which is disposed of at a licensed facility".

I think that the noble Earl has misinterpreted the definition of controlled waste. Special waste is a category of controlled waste and one to which special precautions apply. It is not a discrete category from controlled waste.

Nevertheless, the amendment refers to waste which is not controlled waste.

That is because in this amendment we are seeking to secure that waste which goes to a licensed disposal site is covered, whatever it is and whether or not it is controlled. We have specified that waste which is not controlled waste must be considered as controlled waste and treated as such. To introduce the category of special waste into the amendment would be like introducing the categories industrial, commercial or household controlled waste. It would be an irrelevance.

Amendment No. 143 seeks to allow a waste disposal licence to include provision for the control of any non-controlled waste which may be disposed of at a licensed site. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that Clause 34(5), which was introduced in another place, achieves that objective. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I shall do something that the Minister did not do and read out the words of Clause 34(5), primarily for my own edification:

"Conditions may relate, where waste other than controlled waste is to be treated, kept or disposed of, to the treatment, keeping or disposal of that other waste".

Is the Minister telling me that the words "conditions may relate" would apply to the circumstances that I outlined?

Yes. My understanding is that what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to achieve is fully covered by the terms of that subsection of Clause 34.

The Minister has made a good start. He should keep it up. That is eminently satisfactory to us. I am grateful to him for drawing our attention not only to the words but also to the interpretation of those words in the context of the specific illustration that I gave. I am very grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 144:

Page 29, leave out lines 3 to 19 and insert:

("(a) for Greater London, the authority constituted as the London Waste Regulation Authority;

(b) for any metropolitan or non-metropolitan county in England, and for any district council in Wales and for any islands or district council in Scotland, the authority constituted as the Waste Regulation Authority, pursuant to an order made by the Secretary of State;

(c) no person shall be a member of an authority established by an order under this subsection unless he is a member of one of the councils for whose areas the authority is established."

and in making any order under this subsection the Secretary of State shall have regard to the boundaries of the existing water and sewerage undertakings within the meaning of the Water Act 1989 and existing patterns of waste arisings and disposals.").

The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 144 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Nathan. My noble friend is unable to be present this afternoon since he is attending a Select Committee, of which he is chairman. I am sure that your Lordships' Committee will appreciate the reason for his absence.

In moving Amendment No. 144 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 257. The purpose of the first three amendments is to seek to establish regional waste regulation authorities. The Committee may recall that the Science and Technology Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee in another place recommended that that should take place. The amendments provide for members of such authorities to be drawn from the local authorities of the areas covered.

The proposal was debated fairly extensively at the Committee and Report stages in another place and received all-party support. At that time the Government indicated that the matter would have to be addressed in the White Paper, to which my noble friend the Minister referred in earlier proceedings on this Bill. He spoke of setting up informal groups for waste regulation. That is referred to at col. 790 of the Commons Official Report of 30th April 1990.

In winding up in your Lordships' House at Second Reading the Minister referred to greater co-operation between the authorities at regional level, both for licensing and the creation of regional strategies for the provision of disposal facilities. (That is reported at col. 582 of Hansard of 18th May 1990). Since, therefore, the principle of regionalisation has been accepted it seems sensible that it should be placed on a statutory basis.

The advantages of doing so would be that the regional authorities would then be of sufficient size and have sufficient authority to employ a full range of inspectors and a full range of technical specialists. It would also bring together all aspects of waste management and facilitate the adoption of the best practical environmental options for waste disposal. The authorities would also be of a size to establish an effective enforcement agency against any real or robust criminal activity, which is a worry that perhaps underlay the recent amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 are consequential upon Amendment No. 144. Amendment No. 257 is a reserve amendment in that the proposed new clause following Clause 63 would enable the Secretary of State to bring local authorities together for waste regulation purposes.

We are talking—I believe that we shall probably touch on this later today —of a potential of some 150 authorities. It would therefore seem sensible to require them to be drawn together, we suggest, on a regional basis. I beg to move.

I should like to support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put the case clearly and comprehensively: there is not much for me to add.

The essential point is to have waste authorities which are large and efficient enough to do the job effectively. There is one clear and relevant example. When local government in London was reorganised, the London Waste Regulation Authority was set up. It provides a good example of the benefits of the kind of authority that we are discussing. In London there are 55 inspectors, most of them qualified engineers or chemists. It is an organisation of that size and competence that we seek in the amendment.

I am not happy about these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 144. Clause 30 applies to Scotland. As far as I can see, the provision would certainly not accord with the Scottish provisions. Equally, to leave out subsection (7) as provided for in Amendment No. 146 would be to bring back together the functions of various authorities so admirably separated by the Government and described in Amendment No. 147 to be moved by my noble friend the Minister.

Amendments Nos. 144 and 257 are familiar. Similar amendments were tabled in another place earlier in the Bill's passage. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 144 and the two minor amendments associated with it, Amendments Nos. 145 and 146. If I understand them correctly, they would have my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment setting up statutory regional waste regulation authorities. That would be a major departure from what we currently have in the Bill and would result in considerable disruption of existing local authorities.

The Government believe that in principle decisions about waste disposal licensing and enforcement should be taken by locally accountable regulation authorities. An earlier suggestion that regulation should be carried out by a national body or by statutory regional authorities was rejected for that reason. However, it has become apparent that leaving waste regulation with the existing level of local government might cause the authorities some difficulties. Most notably, there is the problem of the lack of expert staff—a problem which, as we discussed on Tuesday, exists throughout the waste industry and which, it is argued, will only be exacerbated by the new range of powers and duties given to regulation authorities in the Bill.

In addition, there is a desire to implement a more strategic approach to waste disposal planning and regulation. Key aims of the strategic approach are greater consistency of standards across local authority boundaries and the desire to implement a policy of regional self-sufficiency in waste disposal. There were lengthy discussions in another place about regional waste regulation authorities. At that time my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside signalled his willingness to explore the scope for voluntary regional authorities.

The Government fully accept the need for enhanced regional co-operation and co-ordination of effort and resources. That is the best way for standards to be raised and to be made more consistent. To encourage that co-operation, officials have already held a meeting with the local authority associations to discuss the way forward and another meeting is to be held with elected representatives of the associations later this month. I stress again that our preferred option would be for voluntary joint committees to be set up by the authorities themselves, with help and guidance as necessary from central government. That retains the element of local accountability which is vital in decisions about waste disposal and which understandably raises considerable local concerns. It also makes the best use of scarce staff resources.

Amendment No. 257 is closer to our thinking. I trust that my noble friend will understand that I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the meeting to which I referred by accepting this amendment now. However, the Government do not have a closed mind on the issue and may consider taking a reserve power along the lines of Amendment No. 257 if satisfactory voluntary arrangements cannot be made. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation. Although the noble Lord, Lord Moran, gave his unstinting support to the proposal, I feel sure that he will also accept what my noble friend said.

There is danger of spreading a scarce resource too thinly across the country. I have some doubt as to the efficiency of voluntary arrangements but, like my noble friend the Minister, I would certainly not wish, by anything I say or do this afternoon, to cast any shadow across the meetings that will take place. I note that my noble friend the Minister said that the Government do not have a closed mind on the matter. Presumably, as he did not refer to it in his answer, the White Paper, which we understand is to be published in September or October, may contain some further governmental thinking on the issue. That would give us ample time in which to pursue the principle embodied in Amendment No. 257 before the passage of the Bill is completed in this Session. I believe that that understanding is correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 147:

Page 30, line 31, leave out from second ("authority") to end of line 35 and insert:

("(a) to make administrative arrangements for keeping its functions as a waste regulation authority separate from its functions as a waste disposal authority; and

(b) to submit details of the arrangements which it has made to the Secretary of State.

(8) The Secretary of State may give to an authority to which subsection (7) above applies directions as to the arrangements which it is to make for the purpose of keeping its functions as a waste regulation authority separate from its functions as a waste disposal authority; and it shall be the duty of the authority to give effect to the directions").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 147, in my name, is a small but important amendment. It clarifies the requirement that local authorities separate the functions of waste regulation from their new client role as waste disposal authority.

It is vital that that separation of functions is not only made, but is clearly seen to be made. For too long, authorities have suffered from the real or perceived conflict of interest between their role as disposer of waste and their role as regulator. Simply transferring local authority disposal operations to arm's length companies is not enough to avoid continued allegations that that conflict of interest remains. Our intention is in no way to impugn local authorities which have two key but distinctive functions. Instead, we aim for and must achieve a situation in which the authorities are above suspicion of a clash of interests between their role as regulator seeking the highest possible standards, and as the disposal authority looking also for value for money.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be empowered not only to examine the administrative arrangements made by the authorities, but also to direct them to make different arrangements where he is not satisfied that the adequate separation of functions exists. We believe that that is the very least that the public expects to see. I beg to move.

We have no complaint with the objective of the amendment. What worries me about it is the provision whereby individual local authorities shall submit to the Secretary of State details of the administrative arrangements that they make, and the Secretary of State shall give directions to individual local authorities. The thought of that happening throughout the country without any general rules being set by the Secretary of State as to what the administrative arrangements should be fills me with dismay.

I am bound to say that it means that in effect the Secretary of State is second guessing the local authorities, who have an interest themselves in keeping their regulatory functions away from their disposal functions. Of course they do. Surely it would be better to use such a power only as a last resort, and for the Secretary of State to state in general terms what arrangements he would consider satisfactory so that he only has to intervene with the local authority as a very last resort if there is no assurance given that the principles have been adhered to.

I think it is fair to say, first, that guidance will be given before any directions are issued. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, used the words "last resort". The purpose of this amendment is to provide the backstop, which, if it did not apply to a local authority, I am sure the noble Lord would have accepted with glee.

That is unfair and unreasonable. I do not treat local authorities separately from any of the other bodies that have to deal with government. I am simply suggesting for the sake of better administration, both of central government and of local government, that there should be general guidance given, first, so that there can be exception management in cases where something is absolutely necessary —as I said, as a last resort. The Minister acknowledged that to some extent in his reply. What he has not done is to say how it is achieved by the amendment.

If the Minister will say to me that he is willing to discuss the directions that should be given between now and a later stage, then by all means let us let this amendment go. However, it would be in his interests, as well as in the interests of local authorities, to minimise the role of direction between the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State and individual local authorities and to maximise the extent to which the Secretary of State makes up his mind what he wants and makes it clear to local authorities as a whole, then only exceptions would have to be dealt with. I should have thought that that was the minimum of good management.

In reply for the second time to the noble Lord, I shall again take his words and point out that we are committed to providing the guidance in order that the Secretary of State's role is absolutely minimised to the minimal position.

moved Amendments Nos. 148A to 148C:

Page 32, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (9A) below").

Page 32, line 5, at end insert:

("(9A) Subsection (9) above shall not apply in the case of a company which a waste disposal authority has formed or participated in forming in pursuance of subsection (2)(a) above until after the vesting date for that company.").

Page 32, line 13, leave out ("has") and insert ("and "vesting date" have").

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hesketh exempts local authority companies from the requirement that they be run at arm's length until after their vesting date. This is an important measure of flexibility as it will allow authorities and their companies to decide when to resolve that their company should be run at arm's length. It is important that, prior to vesting, companies should not be subject to the additional conditions applied to arm's length companies under Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 149A:

Page 147, line 49, after ("treatment") insert (", keeping")

The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend I wish to move Amendment No. 149A and speak to Amendments Nos. 153ZA and 153ZB. While Amendment No. 149A is a minor drafting amendment, Amendments Nos. 153ZA and 153ZB provide flexibility for the Secretary of State to give approval to certain restrictions on the transfer of securities in LAWDCs; for example, to permit employee share schemes. I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 149B:

Page 150, line 17, leave out ("undue").

The noble Lord said: This is a simple point. We are talking here about discrimination and the Bill talks about "undue discrimination". This rather gives the nod to allowing discrimination. I speak from experience. Allowing discretionary powers of that sort can lead to a great many problems. I suggest leaving out the word "undue" and just sticking with the idea of no discrimination at all. That would be a much better idea. I beg to move.

Amendment No. 149B seeks to delete the word "undue" from paragraph 17 of Schedule 2. I can understand the wish of my noble friend Lord Layton to ensure that there should be no discrimination when contracts are being drawn up, and I share that wish. However, I can reassure him that the word "undue" is justified in this context as it will allow authorities to choose one particular contractor on the basis of their tender for the work.

Authorities must, by definition, show some discrimination when choosing one contractor or another. The term "undue" makes clear that the discrimination should be on the grounds of environmental factors and value for money. It in no way implies that authorities may favour their own LAWDCs or any other company. I trust that these reassurances will prevent my noble friend from forcing his amendment.

I accept the assurances, but I still think at this point that it would be better to use the word "discrimination" than "undue discrimination". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 150:

Page 150, line 18, at end insert:

("This paragraph shall not be construed as limiting the duty of a waste disposal authority under paragraph 18(1).").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 150, and with the leave of the Committee speak to Amendments Nos. 151 and 153, all three being in my name. The amendments are directed to Part II of Schedule 2 to be found on page 150 of the Bill. It is intituled:

"Provisions Regulating Waste Disposal Authorities and Companies".

There is a subtitle to Part II:

"Terms of waste disposal contracts".

Great concern has often been expressed that, while it is a quite proper requirement that treatment of waste disposal should be put out to tender, this may result in the waste disposal authorities, with at present, as is well known, few qualified staff—and even the current staff may be diluted by the necessary separation of regulation and disposal of waste —accepting rather uncritically the lowest price, which would perhaps be natural in certain circumstances, particularly in face of the strongly organised lobby pressing for the adoption of landfill as the disposal method of choice.

I should say that I am advised in this matter by Professor Peter Isaac, a chartered civil engineer, who was a specialist adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology which reported on hazardous waste disposal of 1980–81 under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson. This becomes a serious administrative matter. As I have said, there is a strong lobby in Britain in favour of landfill as the disposal method of choice. But while landfill operations can be satisfactory if skilfully operated, the proportion of waste being deposited on land in this country is far greater than in the other EC countries. The trend is running against landfill operations. That is to be found in the passages in the EC Directive No. SEC/89/934, entitled A Community Strategy for Waste Management.

The Committee will be fully aware that there is considerable public pressure at present to improve this country's protection of the environment. However, changing the pattern of a large and important activity such as waste disposal will no doubt take some considerable time. Therefore in my submission we should not delay initiating that change. For that reason we believe that the Bill must place requirements on waste disposal authorities to prevent their acceptance of the lowest tender in all cases without having given thought to the necessity of minimising the environmental impact of outdated disposal methods such as landfill.

I now refer to the specific amendments that I propose. Amendment No. 150 is directed to paragraph 17 of Part II of Schedule 2. Paragraph 17 states:

"A waste disposal authority shall, in determining the terms and conditions of any contract which the authority proposes to enter into for the keeping, treatment or disposal of waste, so frame the terms and conditions as to avoid undue discrimination in favour of one description of waste disposal contractor as against other descriptions of waste disposal contractors".

Those are somewhat curious general words. My amendment proposes to add to the end of that general statement that paragraph 17,

"shall not be construed as limiting the duty of a waste disposal authority under paragraph 18(1)".

I now refer to paragraph 18 in the schedule. It deals with the provisions relating to waste disposal authorities and companies. Paragraph 18 begins with the general words,

"A waste disposal authority shall have regard to the desirability of including in any contract".

I need not read the remainder of the paragraph because my amendment is directed towards making the initial words of the paragraph more specific. Amendment No. 151 proposes that instead of stating that,

"A waste disposal authority shall have regard to the desirability of including in any contract",

paragraph 18 should state:

"shall include in any contract".

That gets rid of the general words,

"have regard to the desirability of including".

My third amendment relates to paragraph 20 of Part II of Schedule 2. It is quite clear that there will always be a tendency for the officers in the authorities quite naturally to go for the lowest tender. The objective of Amendment No. 153 is to put into the Bill that the authority shall have critical regard to the nature of the waste and to methods other than landfill for the purposes of disposal of that waste.

Accordingly Amendment No. 153 proposes to insert a further clause. New paragraph 20A states:

"A waste disposal authority, in taking any of the following decisions, namely—

(a) who to invite to tender for the contract under paragraph 19(4)(a) above, and

(b) who to enter into contract with,

shall have regard" —

and these are the essential words —

"to the experience of any waste disposal contractor tendering for the contract, and to his proved ability to satisfy the terms or conditions laid down under paragraph 18(1) above",

to which I have referred. It is therefore a precautionary set of amendments. The amendments draw to the attention of authorities that there may be special methods of disposal in relation to certain waste which will be more effective in preserving the environment. The amendments in effect warn the authorities that they should not necessarily go for the cheapest method of disposal —that is by landfill —because in many cases landfill in the long term proves very unsatisfactory for the environment.

To sum up, it is accepted that properly controlled landfill will still play an important part in any waste disposal strategy. The amendments are directed towards ensuring long-term protection of the environment which may not be satisfied by landfill. Therefore treatment and pre-treatment options increasingly better known and more effective than landfill for waste disposal must be given proper consideration at all stages. They may be more expensive in the short term but they become more expensive in the long term in certain circumstances because of the unsatisfactory nature of landfill.

This attitude is in strict conformity with the increasing stringency of EC directives in this field, one of which I referred to earlier. I beg to move.

I was under the possibly mistaken impression that the amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 152 on which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was going to illuminate the Committee.

I asked for it not to be so grouped. I have not seen the final version of the groupings. I apologise. I thought that I had arranged for it to be taken out of the group.

It is on the list that I have.

Order!

I beg the Committee's pardon. It was my intention to give instructions not to include it in that group. I hope that the Minister will allow Amendment No. 152 to be taken separately.

I had understood that that was the position. I therefore did not refer to Amendment No. 152 although it was grouped with the three amendments to which I have spoken.

I accept full responsibility for that and issue a small proportion of blame to whatever word processor produced the sheet that I have.

I have nothing in principle against Amendment No. 150. However, I resist it on the ground that it does not add to the Bill. There are no circumstances in which the provisions of paragraph 17 would be construed as limiting the duty of a waste disposal authority under paragraph 18(1). We believe that the two matters are completely separate. Paragraph 17 merely seeks to prevent a disposal authority from offering contracts which restrict or distort competition —for example, by offering a contract which may favour its own LAWDC. The duty in paragraph 18(1) is to consider ways of minimising pollution and maximising recycling. The duty will not be affected in any way by the terms of paragraph 17.

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that the effect of the word "undue" which is first retained in paragraph 17 means that a waste disposal authority may discriminate in favour of those contractors who offer recycling and the best environmental option for disposing of waste. That discrimination in favour of such contractors would therefore be due discrimination permitted by paragraph 17.

I can sympathise with the intention of Amendment No. 151 which seeks to strengthen the recycling provisions of the Bill but I am convinced that the current balance is right. The Bill already requires disposal authorities to have regard to the potential for recycling, waste minimisation and the prevention of pollution. The extent to which those considerations can be included in contracts is properly a matter for the relevant locally accountable disposal authority rather than for central government. The Bill as drafted gives disposal authorities the necessary autonomy and flexibility to draw up contracts which will suit their particular circumstances.

Amendment No. 153 would require disposal authorities to take into account the experience of the contractor when awarding contracts. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, that under the new licensing regime account will be taken of the contractor's previous record including prosecutions by regulation authorities, competence and financial backing. Disposal authorities will be able to let contracts only to licensed contractors who will already have been closely scrutinised. Disposal authorities should then satisfy themselves that their preferred option is both environmentally acceptable and offers value for money.

The amendment may also have the unfortunate side effect of discouraging authorities from awarding contracts to new firms which may, technically and financially, be equipped to carry out the contract. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by my response to his three amendments and that he will see fit to withdraw them.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for his expression of sympathy in regard to the basis of my two amendments, Amendments Nos. 150 and 151. I have some sympathy with his sympathy having regard to his position in relation with those amendments. I do not at this stage propose to press Amendments Nos. 150 and 151.

I am in some difficulty about Amendment No. 153. I did not quite understand the Minister's reply. He said that the points raised in Amendment No. 153 would be covered by licensing arrangements. I am not sure what licensing arrangements he has in mind. The object of Amendment No. 153 is to draw the attention of the waste disposal authority to the various methods of waste disposal depending upon the circumstances of the waste and the territory with which it is concerned.

I shall read what the Minister has said, take the advice of Professor Isaac and, if necessary, come back to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 152:

Page 151, line 2, at end insert:

("(2A) In seeking to let any contract, the authority shall have regard to the environmental consequences of activities under the proposed specification, including any benefits arising from the incineration of waste").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has been tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Those who follow these matters closely and those who have listened to the excellent exposition of this part of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will find that the issue of incineration causes some heat —not just in this place but elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, explained soundly and fully why it is very important that in some way or another there should be no dubiety with regard to the people who will operate the waste disposal facilities, what they will use to dispose of the waste and, in the context of protection of the environment, what the impact on the environment will be when different methods are used.

This is a probing amendment. It allows the Government to give their views to this Chamber and those outside it on the question of incineration of certain wastes. It is acknowledged that paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 allows a waste disposal authority to have regard to the desirability of including in any contract that the authority proposes to enter into, for the keeping, treatment or disposal of waste, terms or conditions designed, among other things, to minimise pollution. That is the basis on which we have brought forward this amendment: the methods whereby pollution can be minimised.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that specific consideration of the benefits or disbenefits of incineration are taken into account when such decisions are made. I hope that the Minister will not say that in the generality of things that surely will be taken into account. Sadly, an assumption that people will pay due regard to the consequences of doing one thing or another is not always confirmed in relation to many things that happen.

It is recognised that for certain wastes, disposal by incineration is the best practical environmental option. In particular, many special wastes require high temperature incineration. It is generally agreed that that is the appropriate disposal route for clinical wastes. In Edmonton there is an excellent facility, pioneered by the Greater London Council, which offers a very good synthesis of both those factors. Adjacent to the Edmonton incinerator is the North Middlesex Hospital. That enables me to point to the careful way in which the disposal of clinical waste needs to be handled and how absolutely crucial is the incineration process. I have visited the site more than once. I am satisfied with the quality of the work that takes place there; I am convinced that it is absolutely imperative for that kind of facility to be made available.

There is a good argument for considering incineration among the range of disposal options that may occur as a result of the tendering process. However, there are other issues associated with incineration which need to be taken into account. I am advised by the AMA that the current position in the United Kingdom with regard to municipal waste incineration is that of the existing 35 or so municipal waste incinerators most will be time-expired (that is, they will have come to the end of their useful life) by the turn of the century. Even before that time, new proposals emanating from the European Community, with which most of us agree, will place stringent emission requirements upon such incinerators.

The effect will be that only a handful of incinerators are likely still to be in operation by the end of the century. So far as concerns the United Kingdom, it would seem therefore that incineration of domestic waste will no longer be an available option. The main reason for incinerators being closed down rather than equipment being installed to meet the new emission standards is economic rather than practical. Certainly, the standard could be met but the cost of installing abatement equipment would be so high that it could not be recouped from charges for incineration over the remaining life of the plant. There are no political or partisan points here. These are facts of life which must be taken into account.

Aside from high temperature incineration, which is the preferred disposal option for certain wastes, there is need to give consideration to the energy recovery potential that is possible from such plants. We expect the Minister to deal in part with the energy dividend that is available from an incineration process. In practice this may come from using the heat generated from the combustion process to generate power, as in the case of the incinerator at Edmonton, or there is the possibility of operating a district heating scheme, as is the case at Sheffield. The value of the power generated or heat produced when offset against the operating costs and construction work may make those plants economically viable.

That is the case we make. When going out to tender one needs to include in the factors that are borne in mind the consequences of incineration. Several schemes for new combustion engines at plants with associated energy recovery schemes have been put forward. They have been designed to take advantage of recent proposals by the Department of Energy under its commitment to achieve a proportion of the UK's power generation from non-fossil fuel or renewable energy resources. The scheme provides a guaranteed value for the energy produced that is considerably higher than the price paid by electricity boards for energy currently generated in that fashion. Unfortunately, the recent decision that the period during which prices are guaranteed should be drastically reduced has affected the viability of various schemes.

I hope that the Minister has a persuasive brief. I believe that the Bill can be improved if he takes on board two points: first, that incineration per se in certain circumstances is not only the best but should be the only means of disposing of certain waste; and secondly, that an opportunity is afforded to put into practice not only the Government's desire but the whole world's desire to use and conserve energy in the best possible way. I beg to move.

Amendment No. 152 would require waste disposal authorities to have regard to the environmental consequences of the terms of contract which it enters into. The Bill already contains such a regard and goes even further. Paragraph 18(1) requires authorities to consider the maximisation of recycling as well as the minimisation of pollution of the environment.

It is important to remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that authorities are not required to take the lowest cost tender. Incineration may well be more expensive than landfill but may give the environmental benefits such as heat, power and energy recovery to which he referred. Authorities will not be prohibited from choosing incineration where the environmental benefits can be demonstrated. Therefore, I believe that the point raised by the noble Lord is covered and that in some ways we have anticipated it. I hope that he is satisfied with my explanation.

I am grateful to the Minister. He said that authorities would not be "prohibited". However, we wish to see positive encouragement. I believe that there is discouragement of incineration not least because of the capital cost of the equipment. I should like the Minister to say more. I used the illustration of the North Middlesex Hospital. However, in many trade processes it is essential that waste be disposed of by incineration. Also, in the context of the Government's proposals, there is a need to conserve energy.

Can the Minister not say something helpful? I do not intend to press the amendment. However, he said that pollution should be considered. The amendment specifically relates to incineration as a means of dealing with pollution. Can the Minister say something more about incineration as a means of disposal? It is not merely something that should be borne in mind by those who wish to use it. We believe that it has a possible benefit.

I fear that I shall not be able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in the way he wishes. In an earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I pointed out that we do not wish to exempt those who have ideas or concepts by the interpretation of the word "undue" as regards his amendments. If we start trying to put every form of anticipated technology on the face of the Bill, there will be a great deal of extra paperwork.

We have demonstrated the importance we attach to the commitment which does not remove incineration on a fiscal basis. I have made that absolutely clear in terms of the basis upon which an authority can contract from an environmental point of view. I fully appreciate the points made by the noble Lord. At the same time, we wish to provide authorities with the opportunity to make an assessment at their level rather than stipulating on every occasion from the Department of the Environment.

Is the Minister saying that he has no view one way or the other as to whether incineration as a means of disposal for certain wastes is good or bad? If seems to me that the Minister is vacillating and sitting on the fence. He wants authorities to dispose of waste in any way they can. We are saying that if the best means of such disposal is by incineration then there should be encouragement to do that. I am disappointed in the Minister's reply. I do not know whether those outside the Committee will be satisfied with his response.I remain to be convinced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendments Nos. 153ZA and 153ZB:

Page 151. line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below,").

Page 152, line 10, at end insert:

("(3) No provision shall be void by reason of its operating as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above if the Secretary of State has given his approval in writing to that provision.")

I apologise for raising this matter on the Question that Schedule 2 be the second schedule to the Bill. However, recently, I have teen informed that the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors is proposing to make what sounds like a very welcome grant to the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board. I have given as much notice as possible to the Government and I understand that there may be a response to my questions.

This matter fits properly into Schedule 2 because it is concerned with the regulations governing waste disposal contractors. I wish to ask whether the Government are satisfied that the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board is adequately financed and whether they are aware of the grant of £120,000 to the council which is chaired by my noble friend Lord Gregson. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord should answer now but I should like to know whether the Government are willing to give a sympathetic ear to the suggestion made by the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors that they should match the association's grant of £ 120,000, preferably on a pound-for-pound basis.

The Government support WAMITAB. We shall be considering sympathetically its request for financial support. We shall be meeting its representative soon. I very much welcome the support announced by the NAWDC and I hope that every other body concerned with waste will join in its endeavours.

WAMITAB has looked for a system of training and qualifications for waste managers, and we support that. We stand ready to give such qualifications statutory approval under Clause 71. It is intended that the possession of a WAMITAB qualification will be necessary evidence of fitness to hold a waste management licence.

I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. I have no intention of dividing the Committee on the matter.

moved Amendment No. 153A:

Page 32, line 22, at end insert (", or knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be treated. kept or disposed of,").

The noble Lord said: It is interesting to note that at least three great minds think alike, although the duplication of the three amendments owes something to the environmental lawyers' association. We are at one in wishing to avoid the provision of the Control of Pollution Act being diluted and therefore wish to reinstate the provision that to,

"knowingly cause or knowingly permit controlled waste to be treated, kept or disposed of",

illegally will also be an offence, as it is now. I beg to move.

Great minds do think alike, but not identically. I thought the noble Lord would comment on the fact that his amendment refers to controlled waste, whereas the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Layton and myself refers to waste in general. In view of the earlier debate on that kind of waste, which can be damaging—for example, non-agricultural waste from agricultural establishments and non-mining waste from mines and quarries —and the fact that such waste is excluded, will the Minister give some consideration to whether or not the word "controlled" should appear in his amendment?

I understand that Part II of the Bill deals with controlled waste.

moved Amendment No. 154:

Page 32, line 44, at end insert:

(" (d) any non-contaminated non-ferrous metal intended for further use").

The noble Lord said: I apologise that my noble friend Lord Ezra unfortunately cannot be present because he has an engagement in Brussels which he is unable to break. I move the amendment in his name and apologise that he cannot be here, although he referred to this question in his Second Reading speech.

Clause 32(4) deals with the exclusion from controls imposed by waste management licences. This plea deserves some consideration from the Government. The amendment is potentially of great significance. It is designed to recognise and safeguard the position of one of our most important recycling industries.

The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke at Second Reading of the concerns of the British Secondary Metals Association, which represents 375 firms engaged in the recycling of non-ferrous metal that might otherwise go to waste. Unfortunately on that occasion the Minister was unable to provide any assurance on how the Government might respond to those concerns. I hope that the Minister in his response today will be rather more forthcoming.

I shall not repeat all the positive points about the industry to which my noble friend Lord Ezra previously referred. Suffice it to say that recycling of metals by BSMA members saves this country a burden of £1.6 billion a year on balance of payments. I am sure other Members of the Committee will agree that that is very important to the economy of this country.

The amendment excludes non-contaminated non-ferrous metal intended for further use from the full exigencies of the waste management regime. The Government are not prepared to consider any alteration to the definition of "waste". It is wrong to classify recycling and reclamation activity within the definition of waste. The material recycled by the secondary metals industry—copper, brass, lead, zinc, tin and nickel —is self-evidently not waste. It is secondary raw material of enormous value to our industry and our economy. It is regrettable that the Government did not acknowledge that in the Bill.

I do not wish to detain the Committee with a discussion on the legal definition of waste, but I ask it to support the proposition that the recycling of non-contaminated secondary metal should be exempt from an unnecessarily rigorous and inappropriate licensing regime. It may be asked why the exemption should be granted and how the licensing regime proposed could harm the industry. It was said by the Government in another place that no new controls are imposed by the Bill. In terms of powers available to local authorities that may be true, but it is only during the past few months that some local authorities have begun to use the powers given to them under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in order to impose licensing restraints on recycling sites. The Bill reinforces those powers and seeks their general use.

Already the metal recycling industry has faced demands to deposit in town halls commercially confidential information and sensitive security details; for example, demands for diagrams showing where precious materials are stored, which would be of enormous help to would-be criminals. Conditions have been imposed on the storage of non-toxic material that show complete ignorance of the needs of the industry. The amount of form filling and interference has grown. Firms have even been asked to produce lists of their suppliers —information which clearly is crucial to the commercial future of the undertaking.

Not only is the licensing process threatened, but evidence of clear inconsistency in the treatment of firms in the industry has emerged between different licensing authorities. That is bad for competition and for confidence in the recycling industry.

I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment. If not, I ask him to make clear to the Committee that he will issue clear guidelines to licensing authorities on how the regime should be applied consistently to the metal recycling sector. I urge him to ask local authorities not to pursue the licensing process until guidelines under the Bill are issued. I also ask him to accept the offer made to his department, and to take the technical advice of the Secondary Metals Association on board when framing such guidelines.

The wording of the amendment is derived from the recitals to the European Commission's draft directive on the movement of waste. In that preamble the Commission acknowledges that the current EC regime causes,

"certain difficulties relating in particular to the scope of the Directive and the treatment of non-ferrous metal waste".

It states that those difficulties need to be remedied. It also suggests that,

"less stringent rules may be applied to waste which is to be further used".

Again taking issue with the description of recycled material as waste and acknowledging that the directive deals with material in transit and not on site, I submit that at a time when the Commission is recognising the case for the special treatment of recycling, and specifically of non-ferrous metal, the UK Government should not fall out of line. I urge the Committee to support the amendment, which will relieve a vital strategic recycling sector from an unnecessary burden of public sector intervention and detailed local authority control. I beg to move.