House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Jun 1995

Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 260, in clause 30, page 26, line 33, leave out second `to' and insert `only to those strategic'.

Mr. Galbraith: I welcome the brief appearance here by the Under- Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). He and I spent a most enjoyable time considering the previous environment Bill from the Scottish Office--the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill. The Minister will be interested to know that the definition of sustainability that we discussed then at great length was debated at great length during the Committee stage of this Bill. We are no further forward and we have not resolved the matter. This time, we have not dipped into Wittgenstein's "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" or any of the erudite matters that we dealt with last time.

The new clause is yet another attempt to try to beef up the functions of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. One of the things that we cannot understand is why the Government have set up simply a pollution control agency and not an environmental protection agency. Although SEPA is known as an environmental protection agency, it is, in fact, only a pollution control agency, unlike the Environment Agency, which will handle many functions.

Column 914

The Environment Agency will have a duty to protect and enhance the environment. No such duty is laid on SEPA. The Secretary of State will only issue guidelines to which the agency will have regard. That produces a problem in that we shall have two agencies-- Scottish Natural Heritage, which will be responsible for protecting and enhancing the environment, the natural heritage and flora and fauna, and seeking to enhance enjoyment in the countryside, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Although there many be some cross- fertilisation between the two, they will never link in the centre, leaving a channel in which the environment is improperly protected. The new clause is intended to deal with that problem and that is why we would like to set up environmental quality audits and other procedures.

The Minister will probably have certain arguments in his brief and I ask him not to go through them again. First, I hope that he does not tell me that the new clause is unworkable. If that is written in his brief, I hope that he will get his civil servants to change it for him. The new clause is not unworkable. The words used are already used in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. If we have already used the words in that Act, we can use them here. The Minister should bear it in mind that the new clause uses the words

"so far as is practicable".

It would be wrong of the Minister to tell us that the new clause was unworkable.

Secondly, I ask the Minister not to say that we are dealing with the matter the wrong way round. If that argument is in his brief, he should not read it out. We are not dealing with the matter the wrong way round. The Minister may suggest that the matter can be handled by guidelines. I have read the draft guidelines and I believe that they are hardly worth the paper they are written on. There is all the usual stuff about acting efficiently and effectively and to the highest possible standards, as if we would set up an agency that acted to the lowest possible standards. We do not believe that guidelines are a sufficient basis, although, if we saw some really strong guidelines, we might change our mind.

Thirdly, I ask the Minister not to say that my proposals overlap with Scottish Natural Heritage. They most manifestly do not. Scottish Natural Heritage has powers and SEPA will have powers, but the two do not overlap. I shall give some examples. SEPA will have powers in relation to water abstraction and water drainage, but really only in terms of pollution control. It will not have powers in relation to water extraction and drainage in terms of the effect on wildlife habitats. That is a function of Scottish Natural Heritage and not of SEPA. SEPA cannot use its powers to prevent extraction or drainage except in the case of, for example, a site of special scientific interest.

The same is the case for eutrophication and acidification. They can be considered by SEPA, but only in relation to pollution control and not in relation to conservation and enhancement of the environment. When Scottish Natural Heritage considers them, it can do so only in relation to sites of special scientific interest. It has no powers of control over those matters.

Although, by the year 2003, the Government will have implemented a 60 per cent. reduction in sulphur emissions, a Scottish Natural Heritage report has shown that 20 per cent. of Scottish sites of special scientific interest will still be at risk from acidification. It also

Column 915

estimates that 50 SSSI lochs are suffering from acidification. They include Loch Doon, Merrick Kells lochs and the Cairngorm lochs. 4.45 pm

Furthermore, water quality problems in sites of special scientific interest are often more attributable to diffuse resources than point source pollution. SNH has suggested that there are a minimum of 28 SSSI waters that need improvements to reverse the decline in nature conservation. They include: Montrose basin, Angus; Rescobie and Balgavies lochs, Angus; Castle loch, Annandale and Eskdale; Mill loch, Annandale and Eskdale; Eden estuary, Fife; Loch of Skene, Gordon; Ythan estuary, Gordon; Loch Spynie, Moray; Cran loch, Nairn; Loch of Harray, Orkney; Loch Leven, Perth and Kinross; Carlingwark loch, Stewartry; Milton loch, Stewartry; and Lake of Menteith, Stirling. For the benefit of Hansard, I shall provide a list afterwards. The point that I am trying to make is that the conservation problems of acidification and eutrophication cannot be dealt with by SNH. It has no powers over pollution control. It can deal only with pollution that occurs in sites of special scientific interest. The problem with the body that has the powers to handle pollution control, SEPA, is that it only has to have regard to the environment and has no duty to protect and enhance it. Though the two bodies may mingle, they are not locked together and there is a channel in the middle where the environment is improperly protected. For that reason, I put forward the new clause and hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire): I shall make a brief intervention. I concur with the argument of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), but I want to try to focus the Minister's attention on a slightly different issue.

There is concern that the powers that the Bill confers on a Secretary of State could be used in an untoward way if the power to issue guidance, and for the agency to be required to pay attention to that guidance, started to be used intrusively in a way that affected the operational decisions of and stance taken by the agency. There is legitimate concern that, if that happened, the agency would have no discretion or mind of its own and would not be able to tackle its work in its own way because of possible interference from on high through the powers that the Secretary of State is given by the Bill. Amendment No. 260 would clarify the position by inserting the word "strategic". People understand and fully accept that, if the Government have decided to go down the route of creating the agency, the Secretary of State is properly entitled to have a strategic overview and to set the terms and objectives of the targets that have to be achieved by the agency. However, the Government should not thereafter interfere operationally on a day-to-day basis in a way that would become intrusive. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

The Bill has caused a great deal of concern to people with whom I have talked about the intrusive way in which the Secretary of State's powers might be used. It would be extremely useful if the Minister could say exactly how he envisages the Secretary of State using his powers and what are the proper ways for him to set objectives and

Column 916

targets and give guidance. In so doing, I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance to those who have raised such questions with me.

To all intents and purposes, the guidance notes mirror the requirement that will be placed on the Government to use the negative or affirmative resolution procedure with statutory instruments, so I do not understand why the Government did not accept the same method for setting targets for the agency. If they adopted the statutory instrument procedure to set strategic targets, it would to some extent console those who have expressed concern because they would have an absolutely transparent method of checking whether the Secretary of State's powers were being used sensibly and strategically or to interfere in operations.

I hope that the Government accept that there is a real problem and that the Minister will be able to say something that will give some comfort to those who share my concerns and who made representations to me when the Bill was in Committee.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I do, indeed, recall the debate on sustainability. I think that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) questioned my use of the phrase "sustainable development". I shall adopt not the arguments that he thought I would adopt, but some different ones.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency's functions are different from those of a pollution control agency. For example, it will have more functions in relation to air quality and waste strategy. It will not, of course, have the National Rivers Authority's wider responsibilities for water resources because Scotland's geography and the pressures on Scotland's aquatic environment do not warrant the same approach as in England and Wales.

I do not for a moment accept that SEPA is powerless in relation to acidification. Under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which provides for integrated pollution control, BATNEEC--best available technology not entailing excessive cost--may take account of the effects of the prescribed processes on the local natural environment, including any upland areas with soil sensitive to acidification.

Most of what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is seeking to achieve can be achieved through existing legislation or through provisions already included in the Bill. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers under section 3(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to establish any environmental medium-quality objectives or quality standards in relation to any substances that may be released into that or any other medium from any process.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also has specific powers in relation to water under section 30C of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and he will acquire further powers through the provisions in the Bill. In particular, the provisions in clause 56, which relate to contaminated land, will allow him to issue guidance to authorities on the identification of contaminated land and the standards to which that land is to be remediated. Similarly, under clause 79, my right hon. Friend will have a duty to prepare and publish a national air quality strategy, which must include statements on standards

Column 917

relating to the quality of air and objectives for the restriction of the levels at which particular substances are present in the air. In addition, clause 30 gives general powers requiring my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give guidance with respect to aims and objectives. Those objectives would include the sort of environmental targets that are probably envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, although targets to secure the favourable conservation status of any flora and fauna appear to be more a matter for Scottish Natural Heritage than for SEPA.

There is, of course, a practical objection to the new clause, which is that it might lead to an unbalanced approach if SEPA is expected to achieve overall targets requiring joint action. An example is urban air quality. In the case of fuel emissions from vehicles, the main responsibility would lie with local authorities. SEPA would have powers to limit only industrial emissions, which, by themselves, could achieve such a target only if disproportionate restrictions were placed on industry. The consequences would be a heavy extra burden on local industries that are already tightly regulated, yet the new clause envisages environmental quality targets that SEPA must achieve by itself. Joint co-operation would be required between local authorities and SEPA.

Amendment No. 260, to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) spoke, requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue guidance to SEPA under clause 30 in respect of its strategic aims and objectives. I have some sympathy with that, but the amendment is unnecessary. We certainly intend that the guidance will be of a general and strategic nature. I am sure that that is clear for the draft guidance that we have issued under clause 30. We would not want to issue guidance to SEPA on individual cases--for example, specific applications for an integrated pollution control authorisation.

The amendment would add little to the present clause and is open to more practical objections, as it leaves unclear what is or is not an aim or objective of a strategic nature. The guidance will, of course, be subject to statutory consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. If it is believed that the guidance that we plan to issue is too specific, I am sure that that will come to light during either of those stages. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Members will not press the new clause and the amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his reply and I am grateful that he did not go through all the arguments that I suggested. He obviously dropped them from his brief. He tried to slip in one argument that is unworkable, however--something to do with air pollution control, emissions from cars and so forth, saying that the change would be too costly. I think that that was the general train of his argument.

The Under-Secretary forgets that the Government insisted on keeping provisions for a cost-benefit analysis on the face of the Bill--it was the subject of one of our big debates--which deals with his argument about cost. Although he tried to slip in the unworkability argument, therefore, it is not true.

Column 918

The Under-Secretary also took us around the panoply of powers open to the Secretary of State when dealing with the matter. The trouble is that those powers relate to pollution control. As an aside, I must point out that waste regulation is a part of pollution control. It was suggested that SEPA is now more than a pollution control agency, because it has powers over waste regulation, but that is not the argument. SEPA does not have powers over the environment. That is the problem and it is a problem that the Government did not address. When the Under-Secretary took us around the panoply of the Secretary of State's powers, he did not give us much information on his right hon. Friend's views on environmental targets. Under certain parts of the Bill, the Secretary of State will have powers to produce guidelines about having regard to the environment and its enhancement, but the Bill does not give SEPA a duty to protect and enhance the environment. I have seen the draft guidelines and they are so weak as to be worthless for the environment.

Clearly, the Government are not going to take great strides forward, but this is not an issue on which we should divide the House now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 28

Water abstraction licences

`.--(1) It shall be the duty of the Agency to review any licence (and the conditions (if any) to which the licences are subject) which is referred to as a licence of right in section 33 of the Water Resources Act 1963, or Schedule 26 of the Water Act 1989, if such a licence has not been reviewed since the Water Act 1989;

(2) the licences as given in subsection (1) above shall be reviewed in pursuance of the Agency's duties under section 7 of this Act. If a licence so reviewed is considered to be inconsistent with the Agency's duties under section 7 of this Act, the Agency may make proposals for revoking or varying that licence;

(3) the review period specified under subsection (2) above shall be a period not more than five years from the time the Agency is set up.-- [Mr. Matthew Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 259, in clause 33, page 28, line 44, at end add

`; and to have special regard to controlling the abstraction of water from rivers, watercourses and inland water.'.

No. 246, in schedule 22, page 309, line 18, at the end insert-- `(6A) A drought permit which--

(a) authorises the taking of water from a source from which water is supplied to a site of special scientific interest; or

(b) suspends or modifies--

(i) a restriction as respects the taking of water from a source from which water is supplied to a site of special scientific interest; or

(ii) an obligation to discharge compensation water into a site of special scientific interest or into any river or stream which forms part of, or from which water is supplied to, a site of special scientific interest

Column 919

shall not be issued without the consent of the Nature Conservancy Council for England (English Nature) with respect to SSSIs in England or the Countryside Council for Wales with respect to SSSIs in Wales.'.

Mr. Taylor: The new clause would require the Environment Agency to carry out a systematic review of all water extraction licences, to give it an opportunity to remedy those that are damaging the environment. As a result of licences granted by way of right under the Water Resources Act 1963, there are many cases of

over-extraction. Those licences were not granted with any consideration for the environmental impact. As a result, the licence system has caused great environmental damage.

According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for example, species and habitats in more than 100 sites of special scientific interest in 40 rivers are suffering as a result of over-extraction. It also creates difficulties in reallocating water between users, as the balance between demand and supply becomes more difficult.

The Environment Agency is given the duties to further nature conservation and to regulate abstraction licences, many of which have been granted with no consideration for their environmental impact. The difficulty is that conflict between the two duties is inevitable. Therefore, the amendment recommends that the agency be required to review all abstraction licences formally within five years of their being set up while taking into account its environmental duties. If the review shows that a licence is causing environmental damage, the licence will be revoked or varied.

The Government may argue that such an approach would cut across the system set up by the National Rivers Authority which requires the authority to inspect 2,000 highly critical licences and about 13,000 critical licences every year. But the system set up by the NRA is for abstraction enforcement, or to ensure that licence holders are not operating outside the conditions of the licence that has been granted. The amendment seeks to review the conditions and the form that the abstraction licence takes. That is a different matter, and relates to the environmental problems that I have described. 5 pm

The NRA has reviewed just 207 out of a possible 48,000 licences in the five years of its existence, so it has not even touched on the problem. We need a more systematic approach to reviewing the environmental impact of abstraction licences, and the new clause gives the agency a duty to take such an approach.

Amendment No. 247 simply aims to ensure that statutory conservation agencies are consulted on drought orders. Drought permits allow water to be taken from water bodies that may supply sites of special scientific interest. That can be damaging, and the amendment seeks to ensure that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales are consulted, and consent to, the granting of drought permits which may cause damage to SSSIs.

SSSIs are identified only because they are of national importance--not individually, but collectively. In other words, it is not question of being able to spare one or two sites. They are all of importance, and to damage them in such a way without consulting English Nature or the CCW would be wrong. The bodies have expert knowledge of the SSSI involved and the importance of water to them. That knowledge is vital in ensuring that drought permits

Column 920

do not cause serious and permanent damage to such sites. The amendments are not far reaching and I hope that the Minister will accept them, given his stated commitment to the importance of SSSIs.

Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): Much later today--I hope that we will get around to it before we are too tired--we will be talking about the new duties placed on the Environment Agency in terms of the conservation of water. I believe that the new clause is a helpful element of the duties, because the more that is known about the water industry, the more it becomes obvious that conservation must take place at every level in the water cycle. That applies whether we are talking about water from rivers, water leaking from pipes or water used for drinking and for gardens.

The new clause is a helpful way of giving the agency a systematic approach to its review of abstraction licences. There were serious problems in the River Darent about which considerable concern was expressed in Parliament, and at least 40 sites were identified by the NRA as having no flows. The new clause goes some way towards emphasising the precautionary principle that we have been stressing during debates on the Bill. It provides a means of checking abstraction licences regularly, and it may well be an operational system that the agency would welcome.

Mr. Kirkwood: I wish to speak to amendment No. 259, which stands in my name. I wish also to concur with the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who spoke in support of the new clause.

The Minister will recognise that the problem does not just exist south of the border and that it is also a Scottish problem. I hope that, when he responds to the debate on this group, he will address some remarks to the problem that faces Scotland. Clause 33 sets out the general duties of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency with respect to water. Clause 33(1)(b) states that it shall be the duty of SEPA

"to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of Scotland."

What is that supposed to mean?

The Minister may say that amendment No. 259 is unnecessary because the legal powers contained in those words enable, for example, the River Tweed purification board--or its successor as the regional board of the agency-- to take a firm stance on water abstraction in the Tweed valley basin. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to give that assurance, I shall be content.

As somebody who, in a previous incarnation, was merely a simple provincial solicitor north of the border, I do not believe that the words in clause 33 would give me the confidence to expect that the successor body to the River Tweed purification board--whose members have carried out excellent work-- will have the power to control abstraction to the extent that it would like.

To that extent, amendment No. 259 would strengthen the Bill, and it would not cost the Government anything to allow it. Were the amendment to be made, it would give comfort to many people who are concerned with important water abstraction matters north of the border. The amendment would assure them that the powers

Column 921

available for the SEPA regional boards will flow from the agency, in order to control some of the problems in the future.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): The excellent new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) deals with the conditions applicable to water abstraction licences, and gives us an opportunity to deal with the specific legal anomaly which has caused difficulty to a number of people around the country and upon which I had an Adjournment debate some time ago.

The current state of the law is thus: if an abstraction licence is applied for as a result of a wholly negligent survey, as long as the abstractor abstracts the water on land that he owns, he is not liable to compensate any neighbour for any damage caused to any land or buildings affected as a result of the abstraction. A number of my constituents in a little hamlet called Fron near Welshpool have had the unhappy experience of seeing their houses crack and their gardens collapse and, in one field, a hole the size of two double-decker buses appear. Unfortunately, the abstraction was carried out on land owned by the water plc concerned. A study of both case and statutory law shows that the people affected would have great difficulty obtaining compensation through the courts and, at the very least, would therefore require a precedent to be overturned in the House of Lords. That cannot be right.

Surely we should not be giving water plcs a protection that was intended for publicly owned undertakings and that was created 80 or 90 years ago. Surely it is a matter of common sense and fair government that, if someone's garden is destroyed or house damaged as a result of water abstraction, that person should be compensated for his uninsured losses, at the very least.

The new clause provides the potential for imposing on every water abstraction licence the condition that, if damage is caused to land or buildings as a result of negligence, compensation should be payable.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is aware, the National Rivers Authority inspects annually more than a third of all abstraction licences as a matter of routine. In addition, a number of studies are being, or have been, carried out into potentially damaging abstractions and the number of licences involved. The NRA's approach to reviewing licences is based on a technical methodology that has been developed to screen and prioritise those licences in most urgent need of review. We consider that that approach is cost-effective and puts limited resources to the best use in solving environmental problems caused by licences of right.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: It is important that the Minister makes the point that the general review to which he referred relates only to the enforcement of conditions. The second review, over five years, related to only 200 or so of the 48,000 licences. That suggests that the main cost- effectiveness of the NRA's approach lies in the fact that it hardly ever carries out the necessary checks.

Mr. Atkins: Alternatively, it could be that, when the NRA checks, it finds that there are not many licences to worry about.

Column 922

The new clause would be counter-productive, as it would draw resources away from those areas that are known to be at risk in order to review all licences of right, although the bulk of those are likely to remain unaffected as a result of such a review. In addition, any proposals to revoke or vary licences as suggested in the new clause would have significant compensation implications for the agency. The five- year review represents an uncosted programme that it may be impossible to deliver within acceptable budgets.

Amendment No. 246 would make it a condition that the NCC in England and the Countryside Council for Wales must give their consent before a drought permit can be issued that either abstracts from or suspends restrictions or compensatory discharge obligations from a source of water that may have a direct effect on an SSSI. That would be unnecessary, as the NRA already has environmental duties in respect of SSSIs under section 17 of the Water Resources Act 1991. Those duties should adequately safeguard the interests of the NCC and the Countryside Council for Wales and have regard to actions taken in an emergency, which could include drought conditions.

As regards amendment No. 259, our broad objective in the Bill is to transfer to SEPA the current powers of the river purification authorities to control abstractions of water used for irrigation for commercial agriculture and horticulture in areas of Scotland where it can be shown that water resources are at risk from pollution or depletion from over- abstraction.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked a question about clause 33(1)(b), which re-enacts an existing duty on river purification authorities. As such, it would not extend SEPA powers in relation to water abstraction.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 1 November his intention to bring forward legislation to introduce enhanced, but still selective, abstraction controls in Scotland. New legislation will be brought forward in the light of progress with the European Commission's action programme on groundwater, on which proposals are nearing completion, to ensure compatibility. I trust that that answers the hon. Gentleman and that he will not press his new clause.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The problem with the Minister's comments is his suggestion that the programme in which the NRA is already involved means that the worst cases are identified. The NRA's general reviews relate only to the enforcement of conditions. The number of reviews that it undertakes relating to the problems that may arise within those conditions--because the environmental effects were not originally taken into account--is so small that it cannot possibly identify all the problem cases.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to problems in his constituency that have affected householders and landowners. It is important that a proper process of review is put in place to protect such people; otherwise, the Minister may find that the result of his comments will be that they are told, "The Government are not interested in your problem." That may make them angry, if they have not already disappeared down holes the size of double-decker buses--which may well be the Minister's solution.

Column 923

I do not think that there is any purpose in pushing the new clause to a Division. However, I ask the Minister to reconsider. If he says that five years is too fast, perhaps 10 years might be more appropriate. A systematic review should be put in place so that people and the environment do not continue to suffer.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

The Environment Agency

Amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 2, line 8, after first `Agency' insert

`or, in Welsh, Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd'.--[ Sir Paul Beresford. ] 5.15 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 233, in page 2, line 8, leave out from first `Agency' to end of line 10 and insert

`for England, to exercise in relation to England the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by this Act; and there shall be a body corporate to be known as the Environment Protection Agency for Wales or, in Welsh, Asiantaeth i Warchod yr Amgylchedd yng Nghymru, to exercise in relation to Wales the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by this Act.

(2) Any duty, power or function given to or imposed upon `the Agency' by this Act shall be a duty, power or function of the Environment Agency for England or the Environmental Protection Agency for Wales as the case may be, and the term `the Agency' shall be construed accordingly.'.

No. 250, in page 2, line 8, leave out from `Agency' to end of line 10 and insert

`for England, to exercise in relation to England the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by this Act; and

(b) a body corporate to be known as the Environment Protection Agency for Wales, to exercise in relation to Wales the functions assigned or transferred to it under or by this Act.'.

No. 251, in page 2, line 10, at end insert--

`(1A) Any duty, power or function given to or imposed upon "the Agency" by this Act shall be a duty, power or function of the Environment Agency for England or the Environment Protection Agency for Wales as the case may be; and the term "the Agency" shall be construed accordingly.'.

No. 258, in clause 12, page 14, line 23, leave out

`wholly or mainly of, or of most of,'

and insert `of'.

Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke): We accept amendment No. 40. Unfortunately, on the advice that we have been given, we will have to vote against it, as otherwise our amendment No. 233 would contradict it. Therefore, if the Minister does not accept our amendment, we will divide the House on amendment No. 40.

Amendment No. 233 would create an environment protection agency for Wales. In establishing such an agency, we would again be recognising that Wales is a nation with its own distinct identity, culture, language and political climate. We would also be recognising and endorsing the devolution of responsibilities to Wales that has taken place since the Welsh Office was established in 1965.

Column 924

In addition, we would be recognising that Wales has a range of environmental protection problems and environmentally sensitive areas in close proximity, which simply are not replicated anywhere in England. Health, education, transport, economic and industrial development, all local government expenditure, agriculture, employment and training, housing and environmental services have all been devolved to Wales over the past 30 years. However, the problem is that the people of Wales do not yet control those devolved services.

Until Monday of this week, they were controlled by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)--who, I understand, is claiming to be the new saviour of the Tory party come the next general election, if he is successful in the ballot next Tuesday. I have some information in which the Prime Minister's campaign team may be interested--

Next Section

Home Page