Orders of the Day — Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords]

House of Commons, 14 July 1999.

TIME-LIMITED DISPOSAL OR WASTE MANAGEMENT LICENCES

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 3 to 5.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

First, I want to explain that one of the deficiencies of the waste licensing scheme originally introduced under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 was that those who held licences for waste operations, such as landfill sites, could simply hand in their licences and walk away from their responsibilities. In line with the polluter pays principle, that was rectified in the revised licensing scheme introduced under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As the House is aware, the 1990 Act provides that a site licence remains in force until a surrender application is made to the environment agencies. What is more, it precludes the agencies from accepting surrender applications unless they are satisfied that environmental pollution or harm to human health is unlikely to occur. The issue that the new clause and the amendments address, therefore, is time-limited licences that were originally granted under the 1974 Act. The transitional provision in section 77(2) of the 1990 Act contains two statements on those time-limited licences. One is that they are to be treated as 1990 Act licences until they expire. The other is that they may be surrendered only in accordance with the 1990 Act. We are removing that. It is obviously anomalous to require a licence holder to apply to the environment agencies to surrender his or her licence while the time limit remains in force, but to allow him or her to walk away from his or her responsibilities when the time limit expires. By way of a further example showing the need for these changes, I can inform the House that a review carried out by the Environment Agency has revealed that many licences originally granted under the 1974 Act, and inherited from the former waste regulation authorities in April 1996, are subject to time limits and that, in some cases, the licences have expired without either the agency or the operator being aware of it. In some cases where the licence has expired, the sites are continuing to be operated, and of course to be supervised by the agency, as though they had valid licences. As the House is aware, it is a criminal offence to operate those sites without a licence. Therefore, the current situation is clearly unacceptable. The amendments therefore have two main purposes. The first is to validate what has happened since the expiry of those licences that have already expired. The second is to ensure that all licences—those that have expired and those that are subject to time limits that will expire in future—are subject to the surrender provisions of the 1990 Act. In simple terms, that means removing the time limits in licences that have not yet expired. As I said, the main considerations are the application of the polluter pays principle and the need to ensure that the environment and human health are properly protected. 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, the balance falls in favour of removing those time limits and ensuring that the environment and human health are properly protected.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

It is unusual for such a substantial new clause to be introduced at this late stage of a Bill's passage, so I am grateful to the Minister for kindly explaining privately, in advance of the debate, the purpose of both it and the amendments. However, I have several questions about the need for the new clause and the regulations to which it gives rise. I should be grateful if he would address those when he winds up the debate. As the Minister explained, the new clause was tabled because it had been discovered that the Environment Agency and many operators of sites did not know that they were operating illegally and had been doing so for some years. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell the House when that fact came to light. Why did it take the Environment Agency so long to discover that illegal operation? What procedures does the agency have to check the validity of licences? Clearly, the House will want to know that this problem will not happen again. Can we be reassured that every existing licence will be covered, and that the operator and the agency have a clear idea of the timetable under which the licence will be operational? Have they set in train some kind of warning system to enable site operators to know when their licences may be about to run out? Does the Environment Agency have the resources to implement the new system that the new clause and the consequential amendments will produce? Clearly, there has been a failure in the system, but it is more important today for the House to consider how we avoid a similar failure in the future. One of the things that will have to happen if the Environment Agency is not to go down the same route again is to ensure that it has adequate resources to cope.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Is my hon. Friend concerned that, under the new regime, the number of sites to be licensed will increase from 2,000 to 6,000, and that many of the 4,000 new sites will be small businesses, farmers and others who may not be all that sophisticated in administrative terms? Is he concerned that they might also fall through the net?

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The agency must be up to the mark in its existing activity in this area—which it has not been up to now. It will have an extra load put upon it by the extra number of sites that will be included. As my hon. Friend rightly says, many of those will be small businesses or farmers who may not be particularly sophisticated in dealing with paperwork. It is all the more important that the Environment Agency knows that it has the system and the resources to cope with the new burden that we will put on it. Of the 202 licences which have expired, are there any instances where the site operator has, not unreasonably, walked away and shut up shop? He may have thought that the licence had expired and, therefore, that nothing else could happen legally. Are there instances of anyone walking away, leaving a hole to be filled? The Minister has said that one of the reasons for the new clause and the amendments is to validate past activities. I am not clear from the clause, or from the Minister's helpful letter, whether they also validate the past inactivity of people who may not have fulfilled all their obligations in closing down a site—quite inadvertently. Will those people be liable for prosecution? My underlying point is the extreme delicacy of introducing retrospective legislation. Clearly, this clause is well intentioned and I accept the Minister's good faith. But however we wrap it up, it is retrospective legislation, and we should tread extremely warily when we go down that route. Will anyone be liable to any fees, penalties or other obligations under the new clause which they would not be subject to were the clause and amendments not to pass? If so, the House should pause at that point. As a matter of principle, we should be reluctant to endorse retrospective legislation which imposes any new obligations, particularly if, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has pointed out, some of the recipients are small businesses. It is clear from what the Minister said that anyone who has got caught up in this is likely to have been so inadvertently and cannot be blamed. The new clause makes it clear that it will not affect any criminal proceedings that have been concluded before the Act comes into force. Are there any on-going proceedings that would be affected? Have there been prosecutions for non-compliance with a licence that the Environment Agency and the person operating it wrongly thought to be in force? Has the Minister considered the legal complications involved if someone had apparently not complied with the terms of a licence that had in fact already expired? The Environment Agency would be vulnerable to judicial review. 4.30 pm Perhaps most importantly, what changes will be made in the Environment Agency to ensure that such a mistake does not happen again? It is clearly embarrassing for all involved that the loophole has emerged. It is serendipitous that the House is proceeding with a Bill that allows that loophole to be closed relatively easily. The Bill and the new clause give extra powers to regulators such as the Environment Agency, and I am sure that the House will want to know that the agency's processes have been improved to ensure that no more loopholes appear.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I, too, thank the Minister for writing to me in advance explaining the reasons for the new clause. It is obvious that the loophole must be closed, so my party will support the new clause. Waste operators must not be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities because of a drafting error. I am surprised that the loophole was missed. It may be an unfair question to ask the Minister, because he was not responsible, but why were 12 per cent. of the licences simply forgotten about? Did something happen back in 1990 to cause that? As the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, why has it taken so long to identify the problem? I look forward to the Minister's response to the question about prosecution for inadvertent noncompliance. That is an interesting point. I understand from his office that there have been no cases, but I would like him to confirm that.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for their questions, which clearly need answers before we proceed. For the benefit of those who do not know the full facts about the number of licences around, the latest figures are that there are 7,353 licences in England and Wales, 202 of which, as the hon. Member for Ashford rightly said, have expired but are being treated as though they were still in force, and 677 of which will expire in the future. That means that 879 licences—12 per cent. of the total, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said—will be subject to the effects of the new clause and the amendments. There is no problem with expired licences in Scotland, but there may be some licences—estimated to be fewer than 100—with time limits that may expire in the future. I was asked about retrospection and whether the new clause would be unfair on businesses. I repeat that it is a criminal offence to dispose of waste without a waste management licence. In cases in which a business has been disposing of waste after the expiry of its licence, the new clause will validate those activities and remove the threat of criminal liability to both the licence holder and to third parties who have transferred waste in good faith. I was also asked why the loophole has come to light now. It did so because we now have a national body, the Environment Agency, which can identify national issues such as this. Before the establishment of the Environment Agency in April 1996, there were 83 separate waste regulation authorities in England and Wales. As soon as the issue came to light in one of its areas, the agency carried out an urgent review to establish the national scale of the problem. The chairman of the agency informed the Department of the results of that review on 19 May. We considered carefully the implications, and our conclusion was that there was a serious problem that needed to be resolved during the passage of the Bill. The hon. Member for Ashford also asked about site operators and whether the new clause would mean that they would be able to abandon their sites and walk away from their responsibilities. On the contrary, the purpose of the new clause is to apply the polluter pays principle and, by doing so, to ensure that all licences are subject to provisions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under section 39 of that Act, licence holders must apply to the Environment Agency to surrender their licences. The agency is precluded from accepting that surrender unless it is satisfied that environmental pollution or harm to human health is unlikely to occur. I was asked whether the problem was the Environment Agency's fault. While the Government recognise the difficulties faced by the agency in the past three years, it is a matter of concern to us that the situation arose. We have made those concerns known to the chairman of the agency and it is also our intention to require the agency to review all the affected licences within the next 12 months to ensure that they are all fully up to srcatch. The question was raised of reimbursement of the charges that were levied. We do not agree that that will be necessary, and legal advice obtained from the Environment Agency is that a right to repayment of charges may arise if we do not enact the new clause. I repeat that even though the licences were not in place, the inspection formula was, and all the sites were being examined during the whole period. I was also asked about prosecutions by the agency in connection with expired licences. We have no uncompleted criminal proceedings and no completed proceedings.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I apologise for having missed my hon. Friend's initial speech, but I was in Committee. I understand the point that there have been no prosecutions of people for not having site licences in the past. Have there been any prosecutions for assumed violations of site licences that were not in place? Is it possible for the House, perhaps through the Library, to obtain information about the 202 sites involved?

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

So far, the agency's review has revealed no prosecutions on the basis of expired licences, nor any penalties levied. The new clause is retrospective and would apply in such cases. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asked about the burden that the new clause would place on businesses. The necessary legislation was already in place and the agency carried out inspections thoroughly throughout the period. The amendments will ensure that those inspections are validated and that the process is continued. Finally, I can tell the hon. Member for Ashford that the Government are confident that the Environment Agency provides a system that can deal with these matters fairly and justly and ensure that the public are protected.

PARTICULAR PURPOSES FOR WHICH PROVISION MAY BE MADE UNDER SECTION 2

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 41, after 'information', insert '— (i)'.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 2.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

During the Committee proceedings on the Bill, we had an excellent debate about the public's right to full information about the pollution in their midst. That was in response to amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Pollution is an intrusion. For the moment, it is impossible and unrealistic to eliminate it altogether, but the least that people can expect is to be fully informed about exactly what the factory down the road is putting into their community, street and homes. In May, we launched the Environment Agency's new pollution inventory. People now have access to up-to-date information about emissions from the installations that the agency regulates under the integrated pollution control regime. It is proving extremely popular: the inventory website is receiving an average of 700 to 800 visits a week. It is our ambition that it should be even more informative. I know from our debate in Committee and from the correspondence that the Department has received that there is a great deal of support among Labour and Liberal Democrat Members for expanding the inventory. The Environment Agency will shortly be consulting on extending the inventory to cover the landfill sites and sewage works that it regulates. I am pleased to announce that my Department will be consulting on the possibility of including information on emissions from the 13,000 or so installations that local authorities regulate under the local air pollution control system.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The Minister says that information will be gathered from the 13,000 sites regulated by local authorities. That will add another burden on those authorities, so do the Government propose to give them any money to meet the extra costs involved?

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

The hon. Gentleman and I know that Ministers, regardless of how lowly or powerful they are, cannot give such cost commitments. However, we are confident that the mechanism that is in place will allow local authorities to regulate under the local air pollution control system, and to generate the information that we require so that people can access it centrally. 4.45 pm We shall not prejudge the consultation's outcome, but shall listen carefully to what industry says about costs or any other implications. The Bill contains the power to cover additional installations, but does not permit information to be gathered on energy use and the destination of waste from installations. Those matters are the subjects of amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which are enabling provisions. Energy use is an area already crowded with policy initiatives, and we hesitate to add more without careful thought. A great deal of information will be produced because of the energy efficiency requirements of the new integrated pollution prevention and control regime. There are negotiated agreements on energy use and it is possible that carbon trading regimes may be established. It is by no means certain whether further measures for information gathering will be necessary, but it would be sensible to take the opportunity that the Bill provides to enable such information to be gathered in future.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

Is the Minister saying that the amendments are being inserted in the Bill at this late stage even though the Government think that they may not be necessary? Are the Government tacking an enabling power on to the Bill without having any intention of implementing it? I may have misunderstood the Minister, but that is what he seemed to say.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

No. The amendments are enabling amendments. It is better to include any expansion in the scope of the inventory in the Bill so that we can achieve it if possible. Expansion would be considered only after thorough consideration of the costs and benefits and after full consultation. Our key concern will be to place the minimum burden on those providing information. We would not expect businesses to have to track the journey of their waste through its multifarious stages. We are keen to promote continued development of the pollution inventory, but at a sensible pace and after proper dialogue. Our first priority is to consult on broadening the scope to cover landfill sites, sewage works and local authority-regulated installations. We may later consider including energy and waste information. The Government are committed to modernising Britain by involving people more closely in decisions that affect their lives and by changing the culture of secrecy that has prevailed until now. Access to information about pollution is vital to a fair, modern and open society. In the United States, it has become a powerful force for environmental improvement, and the same will be true in the UK when the Bill becomes law.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

The Minister's introduction has left me more alarmed than I was when I read the amendments. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) is not here because the amendments seem to be a partial victory for her. In Committee, she tabled a more detailed amendment proposing a long list of new obligations on firms to provide information. The Minister for the Environment instructed his troops to vote against that amendment, but said that he would consider it sympathetically. I had looked forward to hearing whether the hon. Lady would be satisfied by the Government's partial move in her direction. Perhaps the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will tell us whether he is satisfied. The Minister introduced a new and disturbing point in his remarks. The Government appear to be including in the Bill powers that may or may not be worth while and may or may not place onerous responsibilities on business. That flatly contradicts what the Minister for the Environment said repeatedly in Committee, which was that trying to define matters too closely on the face of a Bill such as this was bad practice and would lead to inflexibility. The Opposition tabled various sensible amendments to tone down the powers of the Secretary of State. We were constantly told that putting such provisions on the face of the Bill would lead to inflexibility and clog up parliamentary proceedings. Having insisted on that, it is not good enough for the Government to table amendments that would do precisely the same and add new and possibly onerous burdens on business without any particular intent, or certainly any explanation of why those are urgently needed now when they were not needed during any of the previous lengthy stages in the passage of this Bill. During the passage of the Bill, we discussed the necessary balance for the provision of information to enable an intelligent debate about environmental issues. The idea that the more information was provided the more likely we were to avoid some of the more hysterical debates that sometimes arise on environmental matters was certainly non-controversial on both sides of the Committee. Ministers agreed that one needed a balance and there was not simply a right to completely free information. Indeed, the Government introduced a clause to allow commercial confidentiality to be used as a reason for not providing information in certain circumstances. When the Minister replies, I want him to consider the costs that will be put on business and, possibly, agricultural and other operators by gathering the information that is required under the amendments. Amendment No. 2 would gather information on energy consumption and on the efficiency with which energy is used". Those will be interesting statistics and, in the long run, they will no doubt be useful. However, are we expecting everyone who runs a pig farm to gather that sort of information? While that will not be an onerous burden for big and sophisticated businesses, it could be extremely onerous for smaller businesses. It is not clear from what the Minister said that he has done any sensible cost-benefit analysis of what those provisions would involve and of the full extent of the obligations. The efficiency with which energy is used can cover a multitude of measurements. It is not clear from the Bill how much detail will need to be provided. Similarly, the Government will be entitled to information on waste within the meaning of the regulations and on the destinations of such waste". Does that mean the immediate, the ultimate or all the intermediate destinations? Since one of our objections to the Bill throughout has been that it would give Ministers powers that are too sweeping, the amendment is a step in the wrong direction. This is the Bill at its worst. Presumably, to give some sort of sop to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North as I said, the Government have decided to add a little more information. They have not thought through what that will mean in practice; still less are they defining the practical effects. The Minister has said that these are simply enabling provisions, but enabling provisions that do not appear to be based in anything concrete and do not have any particularly urgent purpose can be dangerous. It is deeply regrettable that he has introduced such an amendment at this late stage.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I speak in favour of the amendments that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and I drafted. Obviously, I am disappointed that, in response to the question posed by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the Minister has not accepted the full-blown amendment, but I consider it a partial victory that the Government have taken on board some elements of that amendment. That will widen the scope of the available information about emissions, to include, as the amendment suggests, "energy consumption" and "efficiency". At a time when we are discussing climate change and the reduction of carbon dioxide, it is most important that we know those figures. The amendment will help to identify waste and its destination. The Government are—or should be—pushing hard to reduce the amount of waste that is generated, and to reuse or recycle waste where possible. The information will be helpful in that respect. The information is needed and it will be used. I hoped that the amendment would receive the support of Members on both sides of the House, but that appears not to be the case. I shall support the amendment.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) about some of the implications of the amendments. They fulfil some of the primary requirements of all new Labour measures—to be centralising, to collect information and to be bureaucratic. They go a long way towards providing information that statisticians and the Office for National Statistics may find useful in some future analysis. However, they will not do much to help reduce pollution in the United Kingdom, which is, presumably, the main purpose of the Bill. There is no upside, but the amendments seem to have some potential downsides. We are talking about quite small businesses, as I pointed out in my earlier intervention, which may be relatively unsophisticated. Some of the pig farmers and chicken farmers in my constituency will be affected by the Bill; they will face significant bureaucratic problems in making available to the Government every piece of information relating to what they have done with the products of their farms. I will not give a graphic account of those products on this occasion. As a result of the Bill, farmers, who may be on their uppers, will already be faced with some bureaucratic interference. The amendments will mean that they have to undertake more paperwork for no particular reason. We have just debated new clause 1, which tries to put right the anomaly that 12 per cent. of all sites that should have been licensed have not been licensed. The point was made that the measure will affect relatively unsophisticated businesses, which—through no fault of their own—have apparently failed to license their site, or have failed to renew their licence. We are now discussing the establishment of a new, bureaucratic and centralised regime that will require those same businesses to produce complicated information for no purpose, apart from satisfying the curiosity of the Office for National Statistics. There is no upside, but potentially a large downside to the amendments. In that context, I am concerned about the possible costs. Accountants and bureaucrats of all sorts will be involved. People will have to be employed—perhaps lawyers. There will be costs involved in the production of the information. More important, it is worrying that if businesses fail to provide—through some slip, or through overwork, or lack of sophistication—the information that is demanded of them, there might be penalties. What will those penalties be? In years to come, my constituents may find that, if they fail—through no fault of their own—to comply with the requirements of the Bill, they will be taken to court and penalised. That may cost them significant amounts. Unless the Minister can explain the measures more clearly than he did in his introductory remarks—which I found rather difficult to follow—it seems that they will result in considerable costs for my constituents. The amendments will achieve very little. I hope that the Minister will be able to advise the House of the purpose of the amendments and of the safeguards for small businesses—especially the chicken and pig farmers in my constituency who may be affected.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I shall respond to hon. Members' queries, the first of which came from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who is leading the debate for the Opposition. He asked why we are introducing a detailed amendment at this late stage. The Bill has always allowed for the extension of the pollution inventory. The amendments respond to specific points made by hon. Members in Committee and cover information about energy and waste. The hon. Gentleman implied that the pollution inventory simply piles extra burdens on businesses. We are discussing cases in which owners of businesses say to their neighbours, "In the interests of my business, I shall have to put this substance into your home." I accept that, to a certain extent, we tolerate that practice as the price of living and working together as a community. However, it is clearly unacceptable for the same business owners to say that it is too much of an effort for them to be courteous enough even to explain what the substance is. The pollution inventory is a fair and proper initiative which should be introduced.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I am striving to understand the Minister. I agree with him in principle, so I am not being antagonistic, but if the pollution inventory is so important, why did not the Government originally include it in the Bill? I have come late to the debate, and I apologise to the House for that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, when the Government table such an amendment this late in the proceedings, many hon. Members who are concerned that they should understand it have to go to a great deal of trouble to be present. Will the Minister explain why the pollution inventory is being included in the Bill so late in the proceedings if it is as important as he says?

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

It is very simple. We have responded to hon. Members from both sides of the House who urged us, in Committee, to take that action. We listened, we learned and we adopted that proposal. I turn now to the accusation that the benefits do not justify the costs. Information about energy use could be of great benefit. For example, it could bring best practice to the fore and promote the spread of energy efficiency measures, which would cut costs for businesses and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, more information about quantities and patterns of waste disposal can only help our efforts to minimise waste, thereby saving money and improving our environment. Any proposal to use the powers would proceed only in the light of a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and full consultation with industry and, of course, other interested groups. As I said earlier, we shall proceed with the expansion of the inventory at a sensible pace.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak again. I am impelled to do so by the Minister's non-explanation for the amendments. He said simultaneously that they are tremendously important and will help to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have various other effects, which Conservative Members think desirable, and that a cost-benefit analysis will happen at some unspecified time in the future. It is not appropriate for Ministers to come to the House with legislation and say vaguely that it will be helpful to business, increase the provision of information and benefit the environment, and then to say casually, "At some time in the future, we shall try to gather the facts that may or may not back up the assertions that we have just made." Ministers are doing things in completely the wrong order. Not only are the amendments being introduced at a peculiarly late stage in our considerations of the Bill, but Ministers have had several weeks since the Committee proceedings to respond to the suggestions made to them, and they appear not to have gone to the trouble of gathering any facts to back up the sop that they giving to the Liberal Democrats and Labour Back Benchers. The explanation for the amendments is inadequate, and I invite the House to vote against them.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Title

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. We believe that the Bill will bring significant improvements to the system of environmental regulation. When it is approved, we shall have a more comprehensive, coherent and flexible set of regimes, and with the integrated pollution prevention and control directive it will be part of a level European playing field for all our industries and communities.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

As the Bill reaches its final phase, it is a shame that the Minister could not give a more substantive account of its various phases. It is worth noting how rocky its passage has been. The Government's first attempt to introduce the Bill in another place had to be withdrawn after the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation said that it was a skeleton Bill and inappropriate for the delegation of secondary powers. Their Lordships took the Bill radically to task. It would be churlish not to admit that, since then, the Bill has improved as it has gone through its various stages. It is worth the House acknowledging that, in large part, that is a tribute to the existence of an independent second Chamber, which provides a range of expertise, knowledge and experience, not least from former Members of this House, who improved the Bill as it went through the other place. We tried to improve it in Committee, but of course the Government used their majority to reject our efforts. As we have just seen, they have continued to use their majority, in some cases to make the Bill marginally worse.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

Did my hon. Friend notice that the Government's majority was two down on what it might have been, because two senior Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were not present for the Division? Might that be because they, too, did not understand the Minister's explanation of his amendment, which was as opaque as any explanation that I have ever heard?

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. We are on Third Reading, and we would not want to dwell on amendments that have already been disposed of.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I shall not dwell, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall merely ponder why Ministers in the Department could not turn up to vote for their own Bill.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I feel obliged to comment on that. One of the reasons that Ministers were not present for the vote was that they would have had to travel from Eland house in Victoria. I understand that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was partly responsible for the Department moving there.

Damian Green (Conservative, Ashford)

I greatly regret that London's traffic jams have become so bad under this Government that Ministers cannot get from their Department to the House to take part in an unexpected vote. That did not happen when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was running the Department, because traffic was running better in London then than it is now. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. It is the first honest admission about transport that we have had from those on the Government Front Bench for some time—they have admitted that it has got worse under them. At no stage have we opposed the principle of the Bill. It was a Conservative Government who signed up to the European directive on which its good parts are based. We recognise that much pollution, particularly air-borne and water-borne pollution, can be tackled only on a supranational level. We were happy to sign up to the directive and supported the Government's intention to put it into effect at national level. At every stage we have sought to improve the Bill and although we have succeeded to some extent, thanks to their Lordships, we have not done enough for our own satisfaction or, more important, for those who will be most affected by it, including many of the new businesses, particularly farmers, that will be brought under its provisions. It is appropriate on Third Reading for me to go through our main reservations about the Bill. Perhaps the most fundamental is a constitutional objection. The Bill gives far too much disrcetionary power to the Secretary of State. Under clause 1, he can regulate emissions capable of causing any…pollution. That is an absurdly wide power to give to a Secretary of State. Of course, we know that most Secretaries of State would not interpret that as widely as the Bill would allow, but it is not a principle of good legislation to write into the Bill such a wide power for a Minister. For example, naturally occurring chemicals such as radon or some dioxins are pollutants. They occur naturally in the atmosphere, but they would fall under the powers given to the Secretary of State. Is he to play God and regulate the natural world? I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has some delusions of grandeur, but I do not believe that even he would go that far. As the Bill is drafted, breathing out could be regulated by the Secretary of State as a polluting activity. I invite the Minister to consider whether this is good legislation. A secondary point is that too much is left to regulation, and not enough is written into the Bill. Perhaps most dangerous is the fact that, under the Bill, new criminal offences can be created through secondary legislation. That is an extremely dubious constitutional practice. Most people have a concept of Parliament making law and the citizens obeying the law. They believe that we in Parliament are here to discuss the details of laws and to pass laws. There is a set of law enforcement agencies that enforce them. To allow Parliament to be bypassed in the creation of criminal offences could have serious consequences, which I hope the Government do not live to regret. My reservations have been strengthened by the paean to regulation offered by the Minister for the Environment on Second Reading, when he spoke lovingly of a flexible, interactive form of regulation"—[Official Report, 8 June 1999: Vol. 332, c. 502.] He became almost lyrical about the type of regulation that the Bill would introduce. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is sincerely and passionately devoted to regulating business. I shall quote his exact words, as there was some controversy between us about what he had said. He stated: We do not, in principle, favour deregulation as such."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 June 1999; c. 24.] That is what he said and I am sure that that is what he meant. That statement clearly has wider implications, but it has particular implications for the Bill. We all want an integrated pollution control system, but to gain wide acceptance throughout the community such a system must be respected by those being regulated. If they think that it is unfair or arbitrary, they will object and try to get around the rules. People think that laws are fair partly because they think that the laws have been passed properly by Parliament, after discussion. The Bill allows Parliament, and this Chamber in particular, to be bypassed in the discussion of laws. In the long run, that will not contribute to a good system of integrated pollution control. Our second main objection is the fact that the Bill gold-plates the European directive to an alarming degree. I have already said that we signed the directive and have no objection to its being put into national law. However, we object to the fact that the Government have taken the opportunity to add wide powers to be taken by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation and in other administrative ways. We do not need such wide powers in order to implement the directive. Clause 1(1)(b) and (c) refer specifically to activities other than those listed in the directive. That is straightforward gold-plating, giving the Secretary of State wide disrcetionary powers. We have not yet had a convincing explanation why clause 1 is drafted so widely. This is the last chance that we shall have, so we should let the Minister explain to us why the Bill does not do what it purports to do—implement the directive—but goes much further. I should be fascinated to know why the Government think that the Bill needs to be drawn so much more widely than the directive requires. Many businesses have a reasonable fear that the ground of regulation is shifting in ways that will become increasingly arbitrary. For newcomers to the Bill, that is the great BATNEEC versus BAT debate—the best available technology not entailing excessive costs versus the best available techniques. There is a clear difference. We have had many fairly theological debates about whether there is a difference. Ministers have claimed at various stages that there is no difference, that there is minimal difference, that there is no practical difference, or that there is only a small difference. But the language itself is different. Not entailing excessive costs is a clear limit on the regulation which business can understand. BAT involves many more weasel words—that the best available techniques should be used bearing in mind the likely costs and benefits of a measure and the principles of precaution and prevention. I should be delighted if the two meant the same thing but, as they stand, they do not. I should be pleased if the Minister took advantage of his last chance to give a detailed explanation of the practical difference between BATNEEC and BAT. It may sound rarefied, but jokes are already emerging about what that will mean. A parody of BATNEEC has already appeared called CATNIP—the cheapest available technology not involving prosecution. We all hope that businesses will not go down that route. There is a danger that if people do not think that a regulation is fair, they will try to evade it or bend the rules, and that would not benefit anyone. It would not benefit the law nor the environment. We want people to think that the regulations are fair so that they will obey them implicitly, both in the spirit and the letter. My real worry about the Bill is that people will think that the regulation is unfair and, therefore, seek to evade it rather than to apply it enthusiastically. We welcome the principles behind the Bill and acknowledge that it has been improved on its rather tortuous route through both Houses, but we still have reservations about how it will work in practice. I assure the Minister that we shall monitor its effects with great care to ensure that businesses are not over-regulated and that it achieves its underlying purpose of improving pollution prevention and control. We want to see the Bill work. We hope that it will, but we are not sure that the Government have given it the best chance of doing so.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

It is a pleasure to participate in the Third Reading debate of this flimsy little Bill. I followed its progress from its introduction in the other place to its Second Reading here but, sadly, I was unable to serve on its Standing Committee because of commitments elsewhere. However, I have watched its progress with some interest. It is extremely disappointing that, two and half years into this green Government's hold on power, this is the first environmental Bill that they have introduced—and what a flimsy little thing it is. The Government could have done something about air pollution in a much bigger way, or about water pollution. Their tiny Bill on water charging did not mention water purity. They have introduced no other environmental legislation. That stands in stark contrast to their claims before the general election that they would be the greenest Government ever. I think that the expression was that every piece of legislation would have a green tinge. They said that they would be greener than green, but we have seen only this flimsy little Bill, which merely enacts something which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) rightly points out was initiated by the previous Conservative Government. The Conservative Government signed up to the European legislation which requires this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is in the Chamber this afternoon, was then Secretary of State for the Environment and I was one of his two special advisers. It should not be inferred from that that we necessarily agreed on the measure. I seem to recall that I advised my right hon. Friend that I thought that his proposed action would not be sensible, to which he said, "That is precisely why I intend to do it." But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford rightly said, it was the Conservative Government's idea, and this little Bill merely puts that into effect. However, it does so with some significant downsides. The Bill has not been thought through properly. The original Bill was badly flawed, as was pointed out in a number of procedural ways in the other place, largely by my noble Friends. Some significant amendments were made to the Bill there, so that when it came to be debated on Second Reading in this House it was marginally better. However, having gone through a lengthy and turbulent process in both Houses, the Bill still has some significant flaws, which is a real worry. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford correctly highlighted the centralising power in the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers that he has not had before. It is not exactly a Henry VIII Bill, but it is along those lines. It says, "I, the Secretary of State, know what is good for the country and for air and water pollution. I do not need to put it in the Bill and spell out what we intend with regard to regulation. I need only sit in my room and decide what will be regulated and how that will be done." Some of the centralising powers that the Secretary of State accrued to himself were watered down in the other place, which I welcome, but, none the less, the powers given by the Bill to the Secretary of State are typical of new Labour, which says, "We know best. We are the nanny state. We are the bosses. We understand what the world needs. We don't intend to discuss it with the world. We don't intend to go out to consultation. We don't intend to put details in a Bill which can be read and whose processes can be followed in Parliament." Ministers in their eyrie, high in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will decide what is best and lay it down by regulation. Admittedly, on this occasion, they will do so by affirmative rather than negative resolution, but it still has the stamp of the control freak so typical of new Labour. In particular, the Opposition are concerned about a number of detailed effects that the Bill will have on businesses, both large, small and agricultural. Large businesses already largely comply with the Bill. I would be surprised if many did not already do so, although some may not, in which case they will doubtless welcome the strength of the Bill to remind them what they have to do. However, the number of sites to be regulated has been increased from 1,000 to 6,000, and the 4,000 extra sites are largely small businesses. They are the very businesses least able to understand the Bill and to conform with it. During the Bill's passage through the other place, the Federation of Small Businesses raised its severe concerns about the Bill with the Government but, far from taking note of that and inviting the representatives of the federation in to discuss the Bill's implications for small businesses, the Government failed to acknowledge the federation's letter and it has attacked the Government fundamentally for that. On Second Reading, I invited the Government to say what they intended to do to ensure that the Bill did not bear down particularly heavily on small businesses. I invite the Minister again today to tell us what he has done during the month or two since Second Reading to consult the Federation of Small Businesses and others. I would be interested to know if they have had a meeting. It would be useful if they had. I hope that he has invited its representatives in and, if so, I welcome the fact that he listened to the Opposition's recommendation. I should like to know what he said to them and what they said to him, and what, in particular, he intends to do when the Bill becomes law to ensure that it does not bear down particularly heavily on small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford raised the issue of the difference between BATNEEC, or best available technology not entailing excessive costs, and BAT, or best available techniques. I certainly feel that nothing could be more sensible than to provide the best available techniques without excessive expenditure. It must be sensible to say, "Let us work out the cost-benefit analysis. We are not going to gold-plate our environmental provisions. We want the country to be as clean as it can be, we want the air to be as clean as it can be, and we want the water to be as clean as it can be. However, we will be cautious in implementing that. We will consider how much this will cost business, and how much the economy will be damaged by the achievement of demonstrably worthwhile environmental ends." I enjoyed my hon. Friend's reference to CATNIP, an acronym that I shall use in the future. I do not think that the Government are considering the damaging effect on business; they are merely paying lip service to environmental benefit. Cost-benefit analysis should be involved in all environmental legislation, but I suspect that the Bill tends towards gold-plating. I am concerned about the effects of the Bill on certain businesses. The small businesses on which it will bear down are not belching fumes into the air. We are talking about, for instance, small landfill sites and small farmers. On Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the chicken and pig farmers that the Bill would affect were large farmers. By no means are they large farmers; they are very much towards the small end of the spectrum. The average chicken farm and the average pig farm will be affected. What consultations has the Minister had with bodies other than the Federation of Small Businesses—the National Farmers Union, and the Country Landowners Association—to discuss the effect on our hard-pressed farming industry? Thanks to what the Government have done to them, these people are on their knees in any event; this may be the straw that breaks their backs. It is easy to knock the landfill operators, but many are struggling to provide a worthwhile service, and the Bill will bring extra pressures to bear on them. The effect of the Bill on farmers involves a curious conundrum. The Labour party is in favour of outdoor farrowing, because it thinks that it is green and more organic. It would also like more free-range hens, because that system sounds better and suits it better. I am not sure that the party understands the implications of either system. The truth is, however, that if pigs are outdoors, it is almost impossible to control what happens to their dung. The only way to control a pig's dung is to keep the pig indoors, standing on slats. The dung falls through the slats on to the concrete floor below and is easily removed. The same applies to chickens. If chickens are out of doors or in barns, it is almost impossible to separate their dung from the earth, or from the soil at the bottom of the barn. The conditions laid down by the Bill are therefore difficult to apply. The fact is that the less animal-friendly farms are, the easier it will be to comply with the conditions and terms of the Bill. We must think carefully about this. What effect will the Bill have on the pig farmers and chicken farmers in my constituency? Are we, perhaps, driving them towards the establishment of conditions on their farms that, by many other standards, would be considered non-animal friendly? We must also consider the conditions that we are imposing on our farmers—in the Bill and elsewhere—to which overseas countries do not conform. It is hardly known that most of the chicken that we eat here is bred in Thailand.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the subject of the debate.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that, if we bear down heavily on chicken farmers in this country without bearing down equally heavily on chicken farmers in Thailand and France who are competing with ours, we are doing our chicken farmers a disservice.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. That is what I was trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman. What he is saying is wide of the Third Reading debate.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I understand your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply saying that, if we are considering allowing the Bill to become law, and if it affects pig and chicken farmers in my constituency and elsewhere in England—I am certain that it will, because of the constraints involving the clearing up of dung—we should surely consider whether the same provisions will apply to the overseas farmers with whom we are competing.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman that this is the final stage of the Bill's passage. If he was concerned about these matters, he could have raised them in amendments or on Second Reading. What he cannot do is go wide of the Third Reading debate.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I happily accept your admonitions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not least because I assume that my colleagues will take part in our next debate on the subject. [Interruption.] Of course, they may well take part in this debate in the meantime. Conservative Members have no difficulty with the broad principle of the Bill: indeed, we wholeheartedly support it. After all, it was our idea in the first place. None the less, we feel that it has a number of flaws that prevent it from achieving the high standards that we would normally expect of legislation produced by my erstwhile colleagues in the Department. They desrcibe this as a tiny little Bill, tidying up a few loose ends, but I believe that it will have significant consequences for small businesses, for landfill sites and for both chicken and pig farmers. This is a gold-plated Bill. It is, as it were, a gold-plated bath, and we are in danger of throwing a number of babies out, along with the gold-plated bath water. Doubtless it will be passed, as will all other Bills in this place; but it is worth recording at this stage that Conservative Members have significant reservations about the way in which it will affect our constituencies.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which will be of major assistance in pollution prevention and control. It has been much improved during its passage through the other place and this House. I am disappointed that the Opposition have not felt able to be more supportive, although I am not entirely surprised. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) does not believe in climate change, and the shadow Secretary of State does not believe in traffic calming because it constitutes an impediment. I should like the Minister to consider two points. First, I remind him that I am expecting a letter explaining to me whether the arrangements for offshore installations will cover the storage of nuclear waste at sea. That has been discussed in the past. Secondly, I feel that the Bill has missed the opportunity to deal with flawed legislation in the Environment Act 1995, which introduced a new section 2A into the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with contaminated land. Unfortunately, the 1995 Act also introduced an anomaly, whereby certain types of environmental harm that are currently the subject of statutory legislation fall outside the scope of existing or new controls. In practice, that applies to circumstances in which significant harm is caused. The new definition will exclude many types of nuisance that are currently controlled, and which do the most harm to the environment and to ecosystems. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, believe that simple amendments to the Bill could have dealt with the problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, although I realise that an amendment is no longer possible. I wish that I had received the information on Second Reading, because the Minister has been receptive to amendments. It was identified as early as 1996 by the Environment Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will pick up that point, or perhaps provide some information on it in the near future. I am pleased that the Bill has made swift progress. I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I will not detain the House long, although I am surprised that no Labour Member has bothered to detain the House at all on Third Reading. The Bill is important. I congratulate the Government on introducing it. It is largely sensible and intelligent now that it has gone through both Houses. I commend in particular the work in the other House to make the Bill sensible. It is important to recognise that pollution is no respecter of national boundaries. There is no possibility of having a national environment policy that could work; we have to work on a larger basis. We contribute half the air pollution that we produce to the rest of Europe, and half the pollution here comes from the rest of Europe, so policy has to be based on the European directive, to which I agreed and which was moulded by the United Kingdom in our role as leader in the environmental world. I am pleased that the Minister has introduced the Bill. I found the Minister's explanations of some things incomprehensible; they were rather difficult to follow. I suspect that the Bill has been cobbled together as we have gone along. What saddens me is that it could have been much clearer. I say in a spirit of support, rather than opposition: if the legislation is not well founded, we will do great harm to the environmental cause. If people are frightened by broad powers that are ill defined, they will not believe, as I want them to believe, in the importance of the environment, but will view it as a heavy burden on them. I therefore beg the Minister and his colleagues to try to be clearer about such Bills, so that people can feel that they want to work with them rather than that the provisions are filled with hidden dangers and hidden fears. Some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) are not as worrying as he may believe them to be, but he is right to raise them. Those are precisely the concerns that arise from so weak a Bill that is so poorly drafted. None of us could take much from the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman on climate change. As someone who has been fighting for recognition of climate change ever since I have been in politics—I have done so ever since we started to see it—

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I should like to finish the point first. I take it ill that the hon. Gentleman's party refused to support proper efforts to reduce domestic consumption and wastage of energy when that is responsible for 38 per cent. of the energy that is used in this country. The one party that can say nothing about climate change is his party, which has constantly taken the populist view and never done anything that might damage it electorally. That has been not only my view but that of all environmentalists. [Interruption.] I understand very well, so we do not want to hear lectures from the Liberal Democrats. All we are saying to the Government is that it is the right Bill to introduce. It is a sensible policy. It is based on a European approach that is exactly right, but can they get away from legislation that frightens people unnecessarily, so that the legislation clearly defines what people's responsibilities are and does not give Governments powers that could be used—not, I am sure, by the Minister—in far too draconian a manner? It is not a big thing to ask, but anyone reading the debate, particularly the Minister's answers both in Committee and now, would have to say that ease of understanding is not notable. Indeed, some people have been unkind enough to wonder whether he understood his answer to the House. I would be the last person to say that, but I have read many of the debates and I find it pretty hard to believe that he actually understood the point that he was trying to explain because no one reading the explanation could possibly understand it. I ask him very carefully about that simply because, out there, many people want to support the Minister's environmental policy, but can do so only if they feel that he understands their problems, doubts and difficulties and is prepared to reach out to them with an explanation that is comprehensible. In that spirit, I support Third Reading, but I hope that he will try better in future.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

I shall try to answer the range of queries that were raised. I apologise to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). He was promised a letter on nuclear storage in the sea. I will ensure that that is followed up as quickly as possible. I assure him that the United Kingdom is under an international obligation not to dump nuclear waste at sea. We are consulting on other matters, but I will reply as soon as possible. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's query on contaminated lands, I knew nothing about the amendments. I am surprised that they were not tabled. Nevertheless, I understand the point about the lateness of the day. I will take the matter up and write to him on the matter. I do not want to disillusion the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). He said that, shortly, breathing would have to be regulated. That could already be done under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which was introduced by a Conservative Government. I found absolutely amazing the comment of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the Government had done very little on the environment; I hope that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) would agree with my analysis. Days after coming into office, the Deputy Prime Minister called a water summit and, from that, laid down a plan of action, which has built on the successes of the previous Government in achieving high-quality water standards. It has enabled the water industry to plan a multi-billion pound investment programme, which will proceed over the next few years.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

May I clarify that point? I was not saying that the Government were not green. I wholeheartedly support a number of the things that the Government have done: for example, some of their policies following the Kyoto negotiations. The point that I made was specific: it is the first and only environmental legislation. I was criticising not what the Government have done, but the amount of legislation that they have introduced.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the joined-up government that has been undertaken, and some of the decisions that have been made, he will see that environment policy is having an effect across the board. I remind him—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will agree because he attended some of the conferences—that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, with others from all parties, supported all the efforts at the world conferences in Rio and Kyoto, where we reached a level of agreement, and Buenos Aires.

John Gummer (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Deputy Prime Minister has been commendable in his fight on climate change, particularly in Kyoto and Buenos Aires. The thing that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was pointing out was that many of us have been waiting for legislation to implement the necessary actions that the conferences recommended. We keep asking for that; it has been two and a half years. I hope that the Minister will be able to find time for such legislation. It is not his fault; it is the Chancellor's fault—we know whose fault it is. The Minister is very green. It is just that the Chancellor is not.

Alan Meale (Labour, Mansfield)

All I can say is that we are gaining some momentum in trying to achieve our policies. We are a little quicker in our resolve in relation to the environment than the previous Government, who were in power for 18 years. The hon. Member for Ashford said that more small business would be controlled under the Bill. That is because of the coverage of the integrated pollution prevention and control directive, which the previous Government accepted. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire asked various questions, the first of which was on the National Farmers Union. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has held extensive discussions with the NFU and raised the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised today—on outdoor pigs, and the Bill's effects on that type of farming. Outdoor pigs will not be controlled under the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Small Business Federation and the Country Landowners Association. The Small Business Federation was consulted on the Bill on three occasions, on each of which it was very constructive. I am not quite sure how many times similar contact has been made with the CLA, but departmental officials regularly contact that organisation. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and provide some details on the matter. I tell the hon. Member for Ashford that the Bill was not withdrawn, but recommitted because of some fairly substantial Government amendments to it, which we tabled to meet the points made by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I should also tell him that the previous Government, in the Environment Act 1995, conferred powers on the Secretary of State to create criminal offences by regulation. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will remember that Act. As for claims that the Bill will confer too much power on the Government, we have ensured that proper parliamentary control will be retained. The regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure when they are first made, and thereafter for certain important amendments. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee thought that such provision would be adequate when it considered the Bill. We have also given an undertaking that any future amendments to the regulations that change their provisions and that were previously included in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be brought before Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure. There are, moreover, instances in which it is right to replace primary legislation with regulations, as a set of regulations is a much more flexible instrument than primary legislation. It is also clearly in the interests of those being regulated that any problems can be resolved. As for claims that the directive is being gold-plated, the Government think that the situation is quite the opposite. We have repeatedly made it clear that the Bill's purpose is to allow coherent implementation of the IPPC directive. Industry would clearly suffer extra costs if it had to continue with two separate pollution-control systems. Claims have also been made in the debate that business is worried about additional VAT costs. Labour Members believe that it is a complete myth—it is scaremongering to say—that the directive's use of the term "best available techniques" entails less regard for cost-effectiveness. The United Kingdom's use of the term "best available techniques" includes "not entailing excessive costs". Hon. Members who served in the previous Government, who negotiated that particular directive, should know that. The directive clearly states that "available techniques" should mean those developed on a scale allowing implementation in the relevant industrial sector under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration costs and, of course, advantages. Moreover—as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal will be aware—if we do not implement the directive, in legally identical terms, we would be subject to infraction proceedings.