I will comment first on amendments Nos. 65 and 66, because we, too, have concerns. The 10 days suggested in amendment No. 65 is longer than the seven days within which the police can require drivers to bring their licence to a police station, but I do not understand why somebody should have to take authorisation to a police station; if they want to send it to a police station, they carry the risk. The requirement is to produce authorisation at a police station, but they should not have to turn up and put it in a constable's hand. We are not altogether sure why a person must, as stated in new section 5(4)(b), produce authorisation

''at a place and within a period specified''.

The most important thing is to prove that authorisation exists. We need clarity on what we are trying to achieve.

Amendment No. 91 picks up on a minor discrepancy between new section 5(2)(b) and (8)(b) of the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. New subsection (2)(b) states that a vehicle can be stopped by an officer if it

''appears to him to be a vehicle that has been, is being or is about to used for transporting . . . waste''.

In the latter case, there may be reasonable cause to stop a vehicle that does not have waste on it. However, new subsection (8)(b), which relates to the offence of failing to co-operate with an officer, refers only to waste that

''was or was being transported''.

Therefore, new section 5 is a tad inconsistent. In the first case, the vehicle might not have the waste on it, but an officer may suspect that it is going to be used illegally. In the second case, the implication is that the   waste is on the vehicle. If the Minister looks closely at that wording, I think he will agree that it is inconsistent.

Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 take us way back to a time when the Inland Revenue impounded vehicles at Dover or Calais when people were suspected or accused of tobacco smuggling. Representations were made to several Members of Parliament by people who complained that their car had been impounded, and we disputed the matter with the Inland Revenue at great length. One point of dispute was the fact that people's personal possessions were on the vehicle, and if they had a jacket in there or a suitcase because of a long journey, they were not allowed to collect them.

The amendments in no way seek to get in the way of the intention in the clause to impound, but they protect the individual's right to get back belongings that are in no way related to the waste or to the vehicle being used to transport the waste and that are completely extraneous to the offence that it is thought is being committed.