I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention of the provisions is not to tangle up small projects in a great deal of red tape or bureaucracy. We will not expect people who are building extensions to their homes or garages to produce a site plan, because that would be excessive. He is right that we need to think about the arrangements to deal with the ''specified value'' to which reference was made. That   requires consideration, which is why that is best done through regulations. Values of land will vary in different parts of the country, and the type of land will vary, for example contaminated land will require particular management plans. That variation can be covered by the powers in the Bill to set the arrangements for managing and disposing of waste created in the course of a project.

It is true that there is an element of regulation, and no companies like regulation. However, companies often point out to me—they made a powerful case and I have a great deal of sympathy with it—that good companies take regulations seriously. There is a cost involved in applying standards, whether they be health and safety, environmental or these new standards. Other companies undercut good companies because they bend the rules, cut corners and do not apply standards. We should not tolerate that, because it is bad not only for environmental standards, but for fair competition.

We understand the perfectly reasonable points that the hon. Gentleman makes. That is why the regulations will follow and will be scrutinised. We will consult with those to whom the regulations are relevant. The regulations will also be subject to a regulatory impact assessment, so that people can see clearly who is involved, who they apply to and what the implications are. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's points, but I assure him that they will be dealt with in the regulations that will follow.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.