My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

As I have mentioned during earlier debates on the Bill, the Government intend to use it to make improvements to the offshore environmental regime. That includes implementing one of the recommendations in the recent report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, which was published on 15th March this year, and was instigated following events surrounding the "Sea Empress" oil tanker incident in 1996. I have referred to the report at earlier stages of the Bill.

The work of the noble and learned Lord concerned the control and salvage of shipping and offshore installations in situations where there is a significant threat of pollution. He reached four basic conclusions.

The first was that incidents that threaten to cause or actually cause marine pollution are so many and varied that the involvement of Ministers in operational decisions is not a practicable option. Ministers are entitled to be kept informed and may subsequently be accountable to Parliament. However, while operations are in progress, Ministers must stand aside, and be seen to stand aside, leaving operational control in the hands of a Secretary of State's specially trained appointed representative (to be called, in the jargon, SOSREPs).

The second conclusion was that the "trigger" point at which the Government, in terms of their statutory powers and responsibilities, become entitled to give directions is where there is a threat of significant pollution to the UK's pollution control zone, territorial waters or coastline.

The third conclusion was that officers from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as a whole should play a much larger part in operations in response to a significant threat of pollution than had been the case in the past.

The fourth conclusion was that the government response to the threat of significant pollution from or involving an offshore installation must be compatible with their response to such a threat from a shipping casualty. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should, therefore, be given powers and responsibilities in relation to offshore installations which are similar to those of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

I have given the first three conclusions as background. However, it is only this fourth conclusion that these amendments are designed to implement. They are a lengthy set of amendments and it might be useful if I briefly run through them.

Subsection (1) of the new clause provides the Secretary of State with powers for offshore installations equivalent to those for ships contained in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Subsection (2) seeks to define an offshore installation both by type and geographic location. Subsection (3) seeks to ensure that any regulations made may be tailored to the particular circumstances and various types of offshore installations and that regulations sit well with existing provisions. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) would ensure that consultation takes place with statutory bodies, industry and others prior to the introduction of regulations and that these be made by affirmative resolution of both Houses.

Amendment No. 4, which is a relatively technical amendment, provides that the powers to make and enforce regulations extend to Northern Ireland. The other amendment in this group reflects the fact that the Petroleum Act 1998 consolidated a good deal of earlier oil and gas legislation, including the Oil and Gas Enterprise Act 1982. These are, therefore, tidying-up amendments.

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1. I tabled this amendment because of an undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at Third Reading. I shall come to that in a moment. In discussing draft regulations with the generality of industry affected by the Bill, the DETR has seen fit to include in such regulations an effective appeals procedure. The DTI, which has been consulting with the offshore oil and gas industry on the different set of regulations which will implement the Bill so far as that industry is concerned, has so far shown no inclination to include an appeals procedure in its regulations.

Perhaps I may remind the House of the huge importance to this country of the oil and gas industry. I cannot do so with better words than those used by the Minister for Energy and Industry, Mr John Battle, when he addressed the All Party Group on Oil and Gas last month. He stated:

"The exploitation of the UKCS"—

that is United Kingdom Continental Shelf—

"is one of the great British commercial and technological success stories. In a hostile physical environment, UK technology and teamwork have created a highly-productive oil and gas province which has kept the UK self-sufficient for some 20 years. It provides around 30,000 jobs offshore and many more onshore in support of these, not just in Scotland but in East Anglia. North East England",

and, the honourable Member added, in his own constituency.

"Last year saw combined oil and gas production (132 million tonnes of oil and 95 billion cubic metres of gas) running to record levels. Over 200 offshore fields are currently in production".

By any standards, this is a hugely important industry.

My second point is that the industry has at no point quarrelled with the objective of the Bill—and, I would add, with the objective of the Commons amendments; that is the new clause which the Minister has just moved—as being appropriate to safeguard the environment. It has been perfectly prepared to accept the new regulations, many of which replace existing statutory provisions (I shall not rehearse old arguments) because it recognises that that is necessary both to ensure high standards of environmental protection and to comply with the European directive.

The industry is, therefore, nonplussed and somewhat disturbed to find that in the draft regulations upon which it has been consulted, so far there is no provision for an appeal against any ministerial determination, and so on, as I have set out in my amendment.

I find this all the more surprising because at Third Reading my noble friend Lord Renton moved an amendment in which he sought to write into the Bill the existing statutory provision contained in primary legislation which set out in some detail the appeals procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in reply stated:

"Whatever we do, I can give a categoric assurance that operators will have rights of appeal under the system that we now propose or any future system were we minded to make any further alteration".—[Official Report, 20/5/99; col. 434.]

As regards the draft regulations with which his department is concerned, that is being fulfilled; but, where is the corresponding regulation from the DTI in relation to the offshore oil and gas industry? There must be some explanation. The industry has so far complained that in the regulation with which it is concerned there is no provision for appeal. I have to ask the Minister, why not? Is it intended that there should be a new draft or an addition to the existing draft to fulfil his own very clear and specific pledge given only last May?

I do not want to dwell on the fact unnecessarily, but from the industry's point of view I am sure that the entire House recognises how important it is for there to be a proper appeals mechanism against the regulation. I refer to both this new clause and, as my amendment states, Clause 2 of the Bill—the general operating provisions. We have established that they apply to the offshore oil and gas industry, as they apply to the rest of industry. That was made clear by the Government at the earlier stages of the Bill. That is the reason why I have included Clause 2 in my amendment to this Commons amendment.

I hope that this time I shall be vouchsafed a proper explanation of what is going on and told when we can expect the offshore oil and gas industry to be accorded the same rights of appeal as the Minister's own department is now prepared to give to anybody else.

My Lords, having spent two of the most interesting years of my life as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power—although that was many years ago and there have been many changes since then—I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Roding that the oil and gas industries are vital to this country. We should legislate with accuracy and clarity and avoid confusion.

I gladly support the amendment, in spite of the fact that my noble friend is taking advantage of a power to make regulations. That is an overriding power in the Bill. We have complained about it and at this stage we cannot avoid it.

Noble Lords should bear in mind the implications for the drafting of legislation. The Bill replaces 28 clauses of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and has various vital cross references to the Control of Pollution Act 1974. With regard to the amendment, the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 also have to be borne in mind. God help those who have to construe the legislation and apply it for practical reasons—not just for business reasons, but to ensure this country's supply of gas and electricity without running up against legislative problems. It is not good enough. This is not the way to legislate.

The Government should try to mitigate the situation they have created. The amendment would help by adding a new subsection dealing with the way in which the regulations are to be made.

My Lords, there are two aspects to the debate. The first is the amendment to Commons Amendment No. 1, moved by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Roding. The second is the more general fact that we have known all along that the Bill depends entirely on regulation. Although some regulation is in draft, it will not be possible for ordinary people, let alone lawyers, to interpret the Bill in relation to their circumstances until the regulations are published and passed by both Houses of Parliament. However, that is a secondary issue hanging on the amendment, which I support.

It is unfortunate that a gap appears to be opening between two government departments on the treatment of appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has been very helpful and I understand that his department is providing an adequate mechanism. However, the Department of Trade and Industry, which deals with the offshore oil industry, is adopting a different approach. I acknowledge that I may have been unjust to that department. It may not be aware of the problem, or the difficulty could be something even worse, such as the person responsible for the promulgation of draft regulations being ill, although that is a somewhat feeble excuse, because none of us should be indispensable. If one person cannot carry out a task, somebody else should be available and competent to deal with the matter, particularly in government.

The question of appeals is important. The Minister has accepted the principle and I look forward to his comments, although I understand his possible embarrassment at having to answer for another department.

I also look forward to some reassurance from the Minister on the fact that the Bill is wholly dependent on the passing of regulations. The Bill is a meaningless jumble of words without the regulations that are needed to back it up and give it the force of law, or at least the force of something that can be interpreted by those who have to comply with it. We have protested all along that we are passing a shell. Industry and commerce cannot implement a shell. They can only implement something that has been written down and is capable of precise interpretation. I hope that the Minister does not mind my repeating the fact that we need more than just the draft regulations. When we come back in the autumn we shall need regulations that we can approve, for the sake of industry and commerce throughout the country. Without those regulations they are being invited to fly blind on a dark night in a thick fog.

My Lords, I wish to ask one question arising from the Government's amendment. The point was covered in another place, but I am not entirely clear about the answer. The amendment refers to sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which it describes as,

"powers to prevent and reduce pollution, and the risk of pollution…following an accident".

A question was asked in the other place about whether the powers are intended to be exercised only in the immediate aftermath of accidents. The Minister, in the Standing Committee, said:

"I should point out that the health and safety regulations normally provide for the period leading up to an accident. The aim of those regulations is the prevention of accidents. If, despite all best plans and preparations, an accident occurred, the powers in new clause 2 would come into operation".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A; 22/6/99; col. 108.]

It is not clear to me whether the powers that are the subject of the new clause can be exercised in a precautionary fashion. The way in which the Minister answered in another place seemed to suggest that they would come into play only after an accident had occurred. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the new powers will allow precautions to be taken to prevent pollution if there is an accident.

My Lords, it causes me no embarrassment to speak for the Department of Trade and Industry as well as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is only a minor additional burden. I hope that the whole House is clear about the importance of the oil and gas industry to the economy and well-being of this country. It is central to our future and there is nothing in the Government's intentions that would deliberately or inadvertently lead to any unnecessary restriction beyond what is needed for safety and environmental reasons. Indeed, the oil and gas industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated, has been supportive of the objectives of this Bill and the regulations which are now in draft relating to the offshore installations.

Amendment No. 1 would apply beyond the offshore area, if taken literally, and that would clearly not be appropriate, as the noble Lord acknowledged, because in general we have a perfectly adequate appeals process already in place under the 1990 Act which we intend to carry forward unaltered into the new regimes set up under this Bill. We debated this process during the course of the Bill and the Bill was not amended in another place.

In brief, those provisions provide that an operator may appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision of the regulator. If he wishes, the operator may go on to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision. That is fairly straightforward. It is fair, efficient and there is no need to change it. If we were to adopt the amendment proposed across the board, it would undoubtedly add an unnecessary and confusing bureaucratic third stage. We could end up with a decision by the regulator being subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State. His decision might then be appealed to the tribunal. Even after all that there would be the possibility of judicial review. That is not a sensible regime. The existing one is appropriate and will be carried forward.

In relation to the offshore regime the position is slightly different. There the powers will normally be exercised directly by the Secretary of State. In the case of the recommendations of the Donaldson Report, it is clearly impossible for the emergency operational decisions of the Secretary of State's representative to be scrutinised by a tribunal. The Donaldson Report recommended that a Secretary of State representative (a SOSREP) would have an operational support group comprising a small number of specialists, but it emphasised that the Minister or others must not interfere or give the impression of being in charge. The report said:

"SOSREP may be called upon to make extremely difficult and potentially controversial decisions and he will he unable to make these dispassionately, as he must, if he is looking over his shoulder and guarding his back".

Should any of his decisions be called into question, then the regulations, which will be based on the existing merchant shipping legislation, will provide for a formal compensation mechanism.

As for the wider powers in the Bill relating to offshore activities, it is recognised that care needs to be taken to ensure that there are appropriate and impartial avenues of appeal or review both on matters of law and on matters of fact. Indeed, the oil industry's response to the consultation draft showed its concern in this area. The DTI is still considering the appropriate mechanism to put into the regulations. Though a final conclusion has not yet been reached, an ongoing tribunal is unlikely to be the solution. Nevertheless, the regulations will have to consider a process and that additional provision will be included in the next round of DTI regulations, which it is the intention to issue in the next month or so.

As noble Lords will recall, the regulations will now be subject to the affirmative procedure in this House and another place. We undertook, in response to anxieties expressed here and in your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, that any subsequent amendments to the sort of provisions set out in the 1990 Act would also be subject to affirmative procedure. That will include changes to the appeals procedure currently set out in the 1990 Act or any subsequent change in specific offshore regulations. We are therefore retaining a parliamentary control which will not saddle the industry with anything inflexible and nevertheless give it grounds for appeal.

I understand the general objection of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to putting this provision into regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. We have been round that circle a good number of times and I doubt that we will agree tonight. Nevertheless, it is clear that the general appeals procedure applies in the regulations which are already in the Bill and there will be a parallel procedure in the DTI's regulations regarding offshore installations.

In response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the scope of the powers included here cannot be used prior to an accident. The powers of the Health and Safety Executive and regulation of the licence are protection against the onset of an accident and therefore are not covered by these new powers. Indeed, the Donaldson Report did not recommend prior protection being covered by these powers. Statutory and other provisions spell out the responsibilities of the operator in respect of the situation prior to an accident and the situation post-salvage, after an accident. Those situations are not altered by our adaptation of the Donaldson provisions into the regulations.

I hope that I have said sufficient to convince the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that in practice the procedure will lead to the DTI adopting the precedent set by the DETR.

My Lords, the Bill cannot come into operation until the regulations mentioned in the new clause, and those in Clause 2 of the Bill, have been approved by both Houses of Parliament. How soon is that likely to be? Until then the Bill will be a dead letter.

My Lords, as I said, the regulations on the general part of the Bill are extant and a number of your Lordships will have seen them. The draft regulations in relation to the offshore position will be published in the next month and we expect the full process to be completed within three months. The Bill will be on the statute book, it is hoped, prior to that and we will therefore have fulfilled our commitment in relation to the EU dimension to transpose the legislation by 30th October, provided your Lordships agree my position tonight.

My Lords, this Bill started off on its stony passage to reaching Royal Assent with perhaps the most damaging report the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has ever produced. And here we are, at the final stage in this House considering the Commons amendments and we still find ourselves complaining bitterly that we are having to examine this Bill without some essential pieces of information.

The noble Baroness on the Front Bench shakes her head. But nobody has seen a draft of the measures of appeal that her noble friend said a moment ago were under consideration by the department.

My Lords, for the record, I was not shaking my head; I was losing my spectacles.

My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness has replaced her spectacles satisfactorily, but she certainly misled me.

I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in all good faith is assuring us that there will be an appropriate right of appeal for the companies of the industry affected by this legislation. I accept entirely the points he made about the specific application to this clause—of course we cannot have appeals taking place if emergency action has to be taken in the case of a serious accident.

But I am sure the noble Lord realises the procedural constraints that were upon me in deciding how best to raise this matter at this final last gasp of the Bill. The only thing I could do was seek to amend a Commons amendment. No other amendment would be appropriate, so I have done that here. It is obviously in order because I have been allowed to table and speak to my amendment.

We still do not know what the right of appeal will be. The Minister made it clear that it will not be the same as the right that applies to the generality of industry. The particular circumstances and statutory framework of the offshore oil and gas industry may make that inevitable, but I protest that we are asked to approve amendments without that crucial information. The Minister may not have taken part personally in the negotiations with the oil and gas industry but I am sure that his colleagues in the DTI have told him that there have been lengthy negotiations and that the question of appeal has been raised again and again, yet still we do not know what is to happen.

This is the last chapter in what has been one of the most chequered pieces of legislation introduced by any government for many years. Obviously it is not appropriate to divide the House at this stage. I am sorely tempted but I fear that other distractions may make doing so rather pointless. In the circumstances, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment; but I tell the Government Front Bench that I do so in a spirit of considerable protest.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.

Amendment No. 2 creates another clause to deal with a problem that has come to light—that a number of waste management licences carried forward from the Control of Pollution Act 1974 were time limited and in some cases the time limits have expired without either the licence holder or the environment agencies being aware of it. The amendments remove the threat of prosecution from businesses that have in good faith been disposing of waste in the belief that they held a valid waste management licence and those who in good faith asked them to dispose of their waste.

The amendments will provide protection for the holders of expired licences and for the environment by ensuring that the licence surrender provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 apply to time-limited licences issued under the 1974 Act. It may be helpful if I explain the amendments and their effects.

One of the deficiencies of the waste licensing system originally introduced under the 1974 Act was that those who held licences for waste operations, such as landfill sites, could hand in their licences and walk away from their responsibilities. In line with the polluter pays principle, that deficiency was rectified in the revised licensing system introduced under Part II of the 1990 Act. That Act provides that a site licence remains in force until it is revoked or a surrender application is accepted by the environment agencies. It precludes the agencies from accepting surrender applications unless they are satisfied that environmental pollution or harm to human health is unlikely to occur.

Licences issued under the 1974 Act were subject to the transitional provision in Section 77 of the 1990 Act which did two things. One was to state that licences were to be treated as 1990 Act licences until they expired. The other was to state that they may be surrendered only in accordance with the 1990 Act. It is clearly anomalous to require a licence holder to apply to the environment agencies to surrender a site licence while the time limit remains in force but to allow the holder to walk away from his responsibilities when the time limit expires.

A review undertaken by the Environment Agency revealed that a number of 1974 Act licences were subject to time limits and in some cases the licences have expired without either the agency or the operator being aware of it. It is a criminal offence to operate sites without a licence. However, the sites continued to be operated by the licence holders and supervised by the agency as if they had valid licences.

The amendments serve two main purposes. First, they will validate what has happened since the expiry of licences that have already expired, including removing the threat of prosecution for site operators and those who transferred waste to them in good faith. Secondly, they will ensure that all licences—those that have expired and those that are subject to time limits and will expire in the future—are subject to the surrender provisions of the 1990 Act. That means removing the time limits in licences that have not yet expired. That will ensure that the environment and human health are properly protected in line with the polluter pays principle.

Those objectives could not be achieved if, on the basis of time limits originally set under the 1974 Act, the operators of landfill sites and toxic waste treatment plants could now walk away from their responsibilities. In the Government's view, it is essential to remove those time limits to ensure that the environment and human health are properly protected—while at the same time protecting the interests of those who may inadvertently have been operating without legislative backing.

We all regret the need for those provisions. The situation has only come to light since the Bill was drafted.

My Lords, I will avoid commenting on the substance—tempting though it is; I have two relatively minor points to make on the drafting.

The side note refers to,

"Time-limited disposal or waste management licences".

Surely the word "of' should be "or". Secondly, subsection (11) of the proposed new clause states that references to the 1974 Act mean the Control of Pollution Act 1974. There is a similar explanation in respect of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and a definition of "the appointed day" and other phrases.

The Bill already has two definitions in Clause 5(2). Surely it would be more usual for all those definitions to be placed in one clause, instead of being separated, as they are by the new clause. I suppose it is too late to put the matter into a state of tidy order. I feel bound to point out that that is not the way we usually legislate.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter explaining the amendments that the Commons are inviting us to consider. That was most helpful of him and I am grateful.

I understand that Commons Amendment No. 2 is necessary to legitimise something that has been going on completely illegitimately and that in certain instances we are validating what is factually a criminal offence. So be it. That is necessary.

I would welcome the Minister's assurance in respect of one matter of concern. When local authorities and county councils were waste regulatory authorities, they used two methods to control, regulate, direct and manage waste disposal. One was the site licence, which dealt with all the environmental matters and quality control. The other was planning permission. The planning permission was the primary control matter and, if you were going to operate a valid planning permission, you had to have a site licence. But, as a matter of practice, if you had a valid site licence and you applied for an extension of planning permission, then, provided the site licence was valid and other things could be managed properly and it would not cause too much difficulty, the licence could be called in aid of an application to extend a planning permission.

This is a situation which we now face and one which we may face for all time because, if I read the amendment correctly, whatever expiry date applies to the site licence—that is, whether or not it expires post the coming into force of the Act—it will be deemed, if you like, to continue. Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me.

There is another point upon which I require assurance. I shall give the Minister my reasons. Perhaps we may once again consider my own county, which disposes of huge quantities of London's waste. For many years it has had a policy of trying to diminish, if not absolutely eliminate, the importation of waste into the county. That is a completely understandable policy even if, in relation to London, one has to continue to accept some of its waste for practical reasons.

Many of the existing planning permissions in Essex which have run for many years are coming to the end of their days. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that nothing in the amendments will endanger the achievement of that policy by my former county council. As I say, it may well be that Essex will have to continue to take some waste from London for practical reasons. However, it is not an unreasonable policy for a county in that situation to wish to diminish the practice. Moreover, it seems to me that it is not unreasonable that we in this House should ensure that nothing we do endangers the achievement of that gradual policy. I look forward to the Minister's response.

My Lords, perhaps I may first address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As regards the side note in the margin of the amendment, I am not sure that the noble Lord is syntactically correct. I can see that there is a certain ambiguity there, but it means that there are two types of licence: a time-limited waste management licence and a time-limited disposal licence. Therefore, the inclusion of the word "or" is correct. If you wanted totally to clarify the matter, you could insert the word "licence" again, but the word "or" is correct.

As to the noble Lord's other point, I should point out that the new clause does not change the definition; it effectively decrees that certain aspects of the 1990 Act will be held to apply to those inadvertently expired licences and potentially expired licences. It does not actually change the definition. Therefore, I do not think that it would be appropriate to include it within a definitional clause. In a sense, it is a different issue.

I turn now to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I believe we all recognise that this is not the tidiest of situations. Nevertheless, once we have dealt with the unexpired licences, there is nothing in the change of status of those licences that would affect the ability under planning permission rules of Essex—it is funny how often we debate the concerns of Essex in this Chamber—to alter the use of a site, or whatever. Therefore, it does not directly affect the position.

Regrettably, the amendments are necessary and will put the situation back into a sensible position. I hope, therefore, that the House will be able to accept them.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. In moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Commons Amendment No. 14.

The current regulatory regimes operate under the "polluter pays" principle. The regulator is obliged to recover from operators the full cost of operating the pollution control regimes. What the 1990 legislation does not enable is charges levied by one regulator to recover money spent by another. Under the new control systems, we are looking to achieve a greater degree of co-operation between regulators—in particular, between the Environment Agency and local authorities. This will include, for example, the Environment Agency now drafting certain guidance notes for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue to local authorities. At present, it would not be possible under the 1990 Act to recover the cost of that guidance. The Bill includes provisions to rectify that situation.

However, the provisions in the Bill will only take effect once local authority regulated processes are phased into the new regime. These amendments, therefore, are designed to enable recovery of the cost of producing the guidance during the transitional period between enactment of the Bill and the phase-in date.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her attempted explanation. However, if we look at Amendment No. 14, which is grouped with Amendment No. 3, we find that it says:

"The Environmental Protection Act 1990 has effect subject to the following amendments".

It then purports to amend Section 8(7) of the 1990 Act. However, if we turn to Schedule 3 to this Bill, we find that Sections 1 to 28 have been repealed. Therefore, how can we be amending Section 8? It seems to me to be the most extraordinary legislative attempt, and one which is not valid. We are attempting to amend something that the Bill says should be repealed. How can that be?

My Lords, my understanding is that the repeal has been included in the schedule so as to enable the reproduction of the provisions in regulations at the appropriate stage.

My Lords, it seems to me that we are in a slight procedural hiatus. I entirely understand that part of the 1990 is being repealed in order to permit its, if you like, reincarnation in the form of regulations. But, unfortunately, this particular amendment does not refer to the putative regulations; indeed, it refers to amending the Act. Therefore, I feel bound to support the point made by my noble friend. I am sure that the intention is that those provisions should be transposed into the regulations, but that it not actually what we have in front of us.

My Lords, the point here is that this is a transitional measure. The repeal of Sections 1 to 8 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will not be commenced until the year 2007.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, which removes the standard provision inserted to avoid questions of privilege.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

When I brought forward amendments earlier in the passage of this Bill, to limit its scope to those matters set out in Schedule 1, as requested by your Lordships' House, I explained that consequential amendments to that schedule might be necessary to ensure that it became an exhaustive rather than—as was originally intended—an indicative list of matters which need regulating.

Having had the opportunity to consider the effect of the Bill in its amended form, we want to make it clear in paragraph 4 to Schedule 1 that a permit will continue to be required for certain activities such as storing coal or storing iron ore which are already currently regulated under the 1990 Act. At the moment the schedule refers only to requiring permits to operate "installations or plant". This could be taken to exclude certain things such as the storage activities I have mentioned which are already regulated under the preceding legislation. We must, of course, continue to regulate those activities and the amendments therefore simply roll forward provisions contained in the current legislation.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. 1 wish to speak also to Amendment No. 11.

This is a measure inserted in response to the procedures in another place. This Bill covers a number of regulatory matters regarding pollution. This measure will cover the entitlement of people to know exactly what is coming into their homes and elsewhere.

In May my right honourable friend the Minister for the Environment launched the Environment Agency's new pollution inventory giving people access to up-to-date information about emissions from the installations which the agency regulates under the integrated pollution control regime. It is proving extremely popular, with 700 to 800 visits a week on the Internet.

The Government would like to see the inventory become even more informative. The Environment Agency will consult on extending it to cover the landfill sites and sewage works which it now regulates and my department will consult on the possibility of including information on emissions from the 13,000 or so installations which local authorities regulate under the local air pollution control system. The Bill already contains the power to cover those additional installations.

These amendments would permit information also to be gathered on energy use and the destination of waste from installations. They are enabling powers and they do not in any way presuppose that we shall choose to collect this information in all instances. The expansion of the inventory must, of course, proceed at a sensible pace in the light of full consultation and with any burdens on business properly considered and justified by reference to the benefits. We may, for example, find that we already have sufficient information about energy use as a result of the energy efficiency requirements of this new regime and other initiatives. We would not expect businesses to have to track the journey of their waste through its various multifarious stages. Nevertheless I believe that it is sensible to take the opportunity provided by this Bill, as the Commons felt was sensible, to enable such information to be gathered in future if it would prove beneficial.

Access to information about pollution is a vital part of a fair, modern and open society. It has proved a powerful force for environmental improvement in other countries including the United States. This Government intend that information should be similarly available here where appropriate. As I say, these are enabling powers and each enactment would need to be considered carefully together with the industries to which it applied.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 13.

These are a couple of technical amendments which are needed to ensure that the new regulations can apply to the Crown, including to Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales in their private capacity. My officials have been in discussion with the Palace authorities to agree the detail of how the regulations will apply.

My Lords, as this is the last group of amendments which we shall be discussing I hope that I may say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and to the noble Baroness, for their attempts to explain this Bill to us at its various stages.

I have to say, as I have suggested before, that it is the most chaotic piece of legislation within my recollection, having been in one House or another of Parliament for 54 years. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can be blamed. I should think that it has gathered momentum behind the scenes and alternatives have been presented which have been impossible to resist. But I do think that as Ministers bear responsibility for what happens they must accept their responsibility. Nevertheless I feel sorry for the noble Lord and am grateful to him for his attempts to explain the impossible.

When the regulations come before us—the Bill will not be effective until they do—we shall have to consider them carefully even though we cannot amend them. They will be of vital importance. Above all, I refer to the amount of legislation by reference to previous statutes, partly repealed and partly not repealed. That is something that we should not present the users of the statute with. They will be people performing vital tasks within our civilisation, not only in this country but also abroad. I hope that when the regulations have been passed—I cannot ask for a firm assurance on this at the moment as the noble Lord would, of course, have to consult his colleagues—and approved by both Houses of Parliament (if they are), there will without delay be an attempt to consolidate the provisions of this Bill with the relevant provisions of previous legislation so that the people who will be bound by and apply the provisions of this Bill will be able to look at one statute instead of at four or five statutes and a number of regulations. There is nothing to prevent regulations being replaced in due course by primary legislation. That can be done; I hope that eventually it will be done. In the meanwhile, having made the protest, I hope that the Minister will enjoy the Recess which he so much deserves.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his good wishes for my noble friend's Summer Recess. Let me place on record, as I tried to say earlier, that some of the complexities are because the repeal will not take effect straightaway. The amendment to which I believe the noble Lord was speaking in general terms, Amendment No. 14, deals with the period before then. The repeal can be commenced only when the Secretary of State orders, using the provision at Clause 5(3). This legislation deals with the repeal of legislation, but it cannot take effect until the appropriate stage. I commend Commons Amendment No. 12 to the House.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 17.