House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Oct 1990

Mr. Skinner : Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that when those in the Common Market read his words, they will think that the Conservative party has caved in? People such as Leon Brittan will be laughing like a drain. The hon. Gentleman should understand that alliances and treaties

Column 759

in Europe do not last for centuries. Some people think that alliances such as the Common Market go on for ever. They should read the history books--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) were to respond to that intervention, he would be out of order.

Mr. Skinner : Let me put it another way--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : No.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : I shall not respond to the intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Every hon. Member should realise that, once something becomes Common Market law, if individual countries do not obey they can be taken to the judicial court and be forced to enforced the law. Those of us who are pro-Common Market by nature are trying to explain that if we surrender our rights, as we are being asked to do, we do not know where it will all end. Dog registration is a comparatively minor issue, but the principle is not.

The European Member of Parliament for Highlands and Islands--the Common Market calls her Mrs. Ewing because it is easier to remember--tabled a motion under rule 63 of the EEC's rules on procedure. As we might imagine, the ladies and gentlemen in Brussels refer to that document as (B9/0390/89), and for five pages they go on and on about dogs. We are meant to debate an amendment tonight for five, six or seven hours, and then to pass needless legislation. In due course, we shall be told what to do by our betters in the European bureaucracy. Does any hon. Member realise that the bureaucrats on the Commission intend to remove all barriers not just to trade--in which they constantly interfere--but to the free movement of dogs between member states?

I agree that the Common Market is a powerful institution, but why should it be allowed to decide what is good for our country? Why should it be allowed to determine when rabies has been extinguished in Europe or in the world? Is this country and this Parliament left with nothing to decide? Is the Common Market to decide what we do with our dogs and cats? Why should it be allowed to dictate to us in that way?

5.30 pm

Mr. Dicks : Perhaps my hon. Friend is doing the Minister an injustice. Perhaps he will be able tell the House clearly that he has taken our points on board and that we will all have an opportunity to read the document. My hon. Friend should not be too unfair to the Minister, who I am sure will make the documents available, and will not make any statements tonight that could in any way impinge on the EEC directive.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark : I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will enlighten us in the near future. None of us wants to be difficult or to stand in the way of progress, and nor do we want to stand in the way of this country, France, Germany or the other member states deciding the issue for themselves and how they shall treat their pets. Britain has managed perfectly well, generation after generation, to decide what is good for its dogs and cats.

I would have known nothing of all this had it not been for the generosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who has served as a bastion in defending British interests. I did not know that five pages of rubbish from the Common Market existed and

Column 760

that they were to be the subject of a motion. Why should we waste our time if, whatever we decide tonight after hours of firm debate, and having listened to the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals--whether or not we agree with them --we are then told that we must anyway abide by a directive?

We are used to Bills returning to this House from another place with a message that Her Majesty the Queen has acceded to them and commands our presence in attending to that law. But we may now expect to come through the door into this Chamber not the Queen's representative but Jacques Delors's representative, saying "By the way, this is what jolly Jacques says that you must do." If that is so, let us not waste time in debate, but instead all go and have a good dinner until we know what the Common Market wants. However, we may think it right to defend our country and our rights to decide matters affecting our cats and dogs, and not wait for Jacques Delors to come through the door.

Too many people in this House and in the country are willing to sell us out and to sell us short. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, I shall have no part in it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) made important points concerning the competence of the House and the availability of relevant documents that could inform our debate. When I was elected to the House in 1979, I thought of it as a sovereign House of Commons because it represented a sovereign people. However, we see increasingly that this House cannot make decisions. We may protest and pass Acts of Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East cited the case that demonstrated that this House is not competent on a whole range of issues. I refer to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. I have always understood that when Parliament passes a law, it gainsays those previously enacted. We now have a House of Lords that is dancing on the head of a pin trying to justify the supremacy of a preceding Act of Parliament, demonstrating that a 1972 Act of Parliament takes precedence over subsequent legislation. Today, we are being asked to address ourselves to an issue in which none of us doubts the Common Market has competence. I know that the Government do not want to pass legislation that conflicts with the views of the Community or the Commission. We went through the performance of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, when we tailored it to meet what we thought were the Commission's requirements and those of European law. As it happened, we found otherwise.

The most startling new development in our constitutional history is the Law Lords, in recognising where power lies--as they traditionally have done-- trying to make judgments to accommodate the view of the European Court. That is increasingly happening.

Today, in an area in which the Community clearly has competence under the 1972 Act and under subsequent legislation, such as the Single European Act and that concerning majority voting, this House is having imposed upon it, through our own Law Lords, subordination to the European Court. The Government could avoid the dilemma by proceeding with their own reckonings and allowing the House time to consider the matters that are to come before it shortly.

Column 761

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in that respect, and if it comes to a vote, I shall certainly vote in favour of his proposition.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier) : The purpose of the motion is to decide whether amendmentNo. 296 should be taken sooner rather than later. Hon. Members suggested that it should be taken today, and I personally hope that that will be the case. The House has not yet made up its mind whether it will accept the views of another place. The motions on the Order Paper make it clear that the Government seek to overturn the Lords amendment and to propose amendments in lieu of them.

I moved the motion because, were we fortunate enough to put the debate on the record, in Hansard, it would then at least be courteous to another place to consider the arguments that were advanced. If the amendments--I emphasise the word "if"--are overturned, what then would be the point of the ordering motion? I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and of other hon. Members, but they were referring to a proposal which has been debated in the European Parliament and gone no further than that. Were it to get any further, it would have to be considered by others, not least by the Council of Ministers. Whether or not I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, the outcome is a matter for conjecture or hypothesis and is not a matter of fact.

You may agree with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the views aired in this debate could have been aired when the question of dog licences was previously debated in this House. I have no doubt that hon. Members will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at a later stage.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Unusually, I support the Minister, and think that we should get on and vote. If it takes as long for the 11 other nations of the European Community to resolve a matter that it has already taken the British Parliament two years to resolve--I refer to the question whether we should introduce a dog registration scheme--the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) need have no worries. It may take a proportionately longer time--or at least 24 years--for the European Community to determine the matter. We have taken two years to reach the point of deciding on a logical replacement for the abolished sheep dog licence scheme. The sooner that we can get on and establish that replacement, the better. If we can establish one tonight and defeat the Government in the process, even better still.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : I am in a dilemma. My hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government intend to overturn the amendments that have come from another place. We are entitled to know whether the Government want to overturn those amendments because they are against dog registration for ever. If the Government are saying only that they oppose such a measure but will have to accept it in accordance with the European guideline, that is a very different argument.

Those hon. Members who happen to take this matter seriously believe that we should not put ourselves in a ridiculous situation. I accept that, because of the Single European Act, the Government are in great difficulty. My

Column 762

credentials are that I was one of 11 Conservative Members to vote against the Single European Act on Third Reading. This issue illustrates the sort of difficulty that the Government will get themselves into. Perhaps it might be better if my hon. Friend the Minister made his and the Government's position clear on registration. If he is suggesting to the House that the Lords amendment should be overruled, we shall expect him and the Government to fight hard against some of the extreme legislation that emanates from the European Parliament.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware that I have always supported the principle of dog registration, and I shall do so in the Lobby tonight. Before we move on from this short debate, one allegation has been made which will clearly be picked up by the popular press if it is not refuted immediately and it will cause alarm. I should like to give way to my hon. Friend the Minister so that he can assure the House that under no circumstances would the Government agree to any European directive or legislation which would weaken our control against rabies. I look to my hon. Friend for an answer.

Mr. Trippier : I am certain that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Gale : I am most grateful.

Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South) : I am a firm opponent of dog registration. I take seriously the argument made about debating this matter when only three hon. Members on this side of the House have read what the European Community is suggesting. The Government's policy and my own on dog registration is that we think that registration is simply bureaucratic nonsense. However, the European Community is trying to say that it has serious problems with rabies and other infectious diseases in the rest of the European Community--in at least 10 of the other 11 nations. Therefore, it is asking for permanent identification on the animal to tie in with its inoculation records.

We cannot properly debate this issue when most hon. Members have not considered that part of the argument and therefore whether, in a few years' time, the European Community will say that it cannot allow our special regulations for keeping rabies out of Britain because we attempted to overturn its regulations for dealing with that disease ; that is its regulations on the vaccination of dogs against rabies and allowing vaccinated dogs with identification marks into the United Kingdom.

Without seeing this document or understanding what the European Community is driving at, we do not have the necessary information to come to a proper decision.

Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) : I am somewhat disappointed by some of my hon. Friends' arguments and I hope that they will take my hon. Friend the Minister's advice. Like one or two other hon. Members I, sadly, felt obliged to join the Opposition when they declined the invitation of the Patronage Secretary to vote for the Single European Act, precisely because of the majority vote that that Act provided. It staggers me to listen to a debate among my hon. Friends who also defied that three-line Whip to vote against the Act, but are now saying that we should postpone what we are doing until we find out what the Europeans are playing at. Surely that is contrary to what we are driving at. I hope that the House

Column 763

will get on with the debate tonight and tomorrow, get it out of the way and not give a damn about what the European Parliament is doing. But if the Government are stupid enough to get themselves on the hook, in six or 12 months' time they will be wriggling and perhaps will not receive much support from Members on their own Benches. The tenor of the debate--that we should stop what we are doing tonight to enable the Europeans to crack on with it--

Mr. McWilliam : I am worried that local authorities will be required to spend money that they do not have. The legislation will be funded by the poll tax, which will be otiose because it will be overtaken by other legislation that we know is coming but, because the document is not available in the Vote Office, most hon. Members do not know exactly what is happening. It is important that we put this debate in context. The only way that we can do so is to read about what is intended and thus avoid spending money needlessly.

Mr. Conway : The hon. Gentleman is right to take these matters seriously. He and I have long experience of local government. I believe that many local councils are itching for an opportunity to bang up the poll tax and would probably use this measure as just another reason, so I cannot accept his arguments.

I hope that the House will reject this attempt by their unelected Lordships to impose yet another tax on our constituents. Some hon. Members who have spoken are quite wrong. The sooner that we get this measure through and put the views of the House on the record, and thus defy what overpaid and underworked Europeans are trying to do, the better.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Lords Amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 1 to 173, 296, 299 and 436, 174 and 295, 297, 298 and 300 to 435.

Clause 1

Preliminary.

Lords amendment : No. 1, in page 2 line 13, after ("and") insert ("the air within")

5.45 pm

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

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

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

Mr. Fry : I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a few questions about the Lords amendments, which I understand were intended to tighten up the original

Column 764

wording of the Bill. The reason for my questions is that these clauses have serious implications for certain aspects of British industry.

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

For example, statutory instrument No. 1159, which was issued just before the summer recess last year, stated that any trade effluent discharges which raise the concentration of prescribed substances above background level meant that sector fell under integrated pollution control even if the presence of prescribed substances was occasional or intermittent. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members are aware that I act as a consultant to the British Leather Confederation which is very worried about the implications of these clauses and the regulations that will flow from them. As I understand it, with the absence of any de minimis exemption, small companies with as few as a dozen workers could come under full integrated pollution control, with all the associated monitoring and registration costs.

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

I therefore hope, that my hon. Friend will take note of the industry's very real anxieties and those of other related industries, and will give me an assurance that, when the regulations are drawn up, they will take the interests of British industry into

account--especially the interests of many small firms, which could become hopelessly enmeshed in bureaucracy and might never be able to afford the measures needed to avoid prosecution under the Act when it becomes law.

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

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

Secondly, the views of the British Leather Confederation and the Chemical Industries Association have been consistent throughout. They welcome the main thrust of what we are trying to achieve in part I : higher

Column 765

standards for the control of emissions and for those polluting processes that affect the land, water and air. They also want the regulations to be fair. I have repeatedly given assurances about those matters to them.

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

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment : No. 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert ("(which in this Part means a river purification authority within the meaning of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951)")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas -Hamilton) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

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

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : Both Lords amendment No. 2 and the other Lords amendments are technical and consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 2

Prescribed processes and prescribed substances

Lords amendment : No. 3, in page 4, line 19, at end insert ("and to which conditions as specified in directions in accordance with section 7(3A) below shall apply")

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

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

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

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

If the Government insist on rejecting the Valdez principle, their rejection of it will be even further proof that they are not using the Bill to improve environmental protection and that they are continuing to waste the

Column 766

opportunity that the legislation could provide. We have said all along that the title "Environmental Protection Bill" is very grand, but the contents of the Bill do not match its title.

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

The Government's attitude led the Opposition in the other place to table the amendment that incorporates the Valdez principle. We are keen that that principle should remain part of the legislation. We want to take the matter further and use part I to establish an environmental protection agency to co-ordinate all the policy aspects that ought to be taken into account when considering integrated pollution control and all other aspects of environmental protection. I remind the House of the Valdez principle. It is strange that the Minister should seek to reject it. It is not only Labour politicians in this country who have put forward such an amendment. The Valdez principle was established in the first place by United States investors, for ethical reasons. That group of people will grow in number and influence. I hope that the principle that the group advocates--that companies should carry out environmental audits--will be taken on board by the Government. The Opposition regret that they have not yet done so.

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

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

(b) the protection of the biosphere ;

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

(e) the conservation of energy ;

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

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

(h) the undertaking of adequate provision for compensation (

(i) the disclosure of adequate information

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

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

Column 767

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

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

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

6 pm

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

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

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

I am sorry that the Minister persisted in insisting that there should be a negative approach to those problems. The concept behind IPC is an integrated approach to pollution control. Where better than the Bill, therefore, to introduce all the other considerations that I have

Column 768

mentioned, from energy conservation to environmental auditing? If the Minister persists in talking down industry and talking about the problems of environmental legislation rather than the opportunities, he will not be doing industry any favours, and he certainly will not be doing the environment any favours.

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

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

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

"the sustainable use of natural resources".

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

"the reduction, minimisation and acceptable disposal of waste." I should have thought that that was entirely acceptable. I am aware, for example, that if waste disposal were

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

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

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

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

"caused by the person authorised, or his processes or products." It is an entirely proper principle that somebody who pollutes is required to pay adequate compensation.

The proposal on compulsory environmental audits reads : "the undertaking of periodic assessments and audits to monitor the effectiveness of any principles of actions adopted."

I should have thought that the CBI would welcome that. It should be built into the practice of industry and business that it periodically assesses, audits and monitors the effectiveness of its work. I do not see that Government or industry could have any objection to that. Yes, it may cost

Next Section

Home Page