This debate will enable us to clarify the relationship of the boundaries within the allocating authorities. The amendment suggests the inclusion of the word ''geographical''.
We also wish to establish whether the Government anticipate any trading of waste emissions across state lines, and what effect that would have. We had a lengthy debate about defining disposal and collection authorities, and the sort of anomalies that occur. For example, in Hampshire, Project Integra involves a mixture of unitary, county and borough authorities. We would therefore like to know whether trading across state lines is expected. If there were no suitable facilities in Berwick, for example, could the authorities look north into Scotland? What would be the effect of that, particularly for the purposes of reporting?
I shall try to be equally brief. When I saw the amendments, I was uncertain as to their thrust. They would amend subsections (2) and (4), which define what is meant by an allocating authority or a monitoring authority area, and make each definition refer to a ''geographical area''.
Clarity in legislation is important. However, I also favour the use of as few words as possible, so long as that does not result in legal uncertainty. I do not believe that adding the word ''geographical'' to the Bill would contribute to its clarity, and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
The hon. Lady made a point about trading across state borders, and she gave the example of Berwick and the possibility of it dealing with the authority immediately on the other side of the border. That would certainly be permitted, and I do not think the inclusion of the word ''geographical'' is required to achieve that. If that was the purpose of the amendment, I hope that the hon. Lady is now satisfied that it is not necessary.