Clause 2.—(PROHIBITION ON USE OF STREAM FOR DISPOSAL OF POLLUTING MATTER, REFUSE, ETC.)

HC Deb 31 May 1951 vol 488 cc457-500

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 15, at end, insert: (2) Where or in so far as a standard has not been prescribed as respects a stream or part of a stream by byelaws made under section five of this Act, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence in respect of that stream or that part thereof under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section to prove—

1. (a) that the discharge of matter into that stream or that part thereof is not a new discharge; and
2. (b) that he is unable consistently with the reasonable and lawful carrying on of any customary process in connection with his trade or manufacture or statutory duties to prevent such matter entering that stream or that part thereof; and
3. (c) that he is using the best practicable means within a reasonable cost to render the matter entering that stream or that part thereof harmless and inoffensive.

For the purposes of this subsection the expression "new discharge" shall have the same meaning as is given to it in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section seven of this Act.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Nugent

After that pleasant interlude, we return to our muddy waters. I was addressing my remarks to the way in which this Amendment might affect industry, and I was saying that I believe that industry has a common interest with everyone else to see the general condition of our rivers improved. This Bill sets out to improve the condition of our rivers and to prevent pollution, and in those circumstances it is hardly reasonable to have a provision which will have the effect that new effluents could be discharged into rivers of already low quality, which would mean reducing the quality even lower. That is the whole point of this Amendment.

I and my hon. Friends feel that, whilst it is reasonable that this particular defence should be open in respect of existing effluents, it would be contrary to the whole philosophy of the Bill to allow that defence to be open in respect of new effluents. That would mean that this Bill, instead of enabling river boards at least to maintain the existing condition of rivers, and we hope progressively improve their condition, would allow people to discharge effluents into rivers, making them worse than they were before. That just does not seem reasonable, and in spite of the comments of the right hon. Gentleman on an earlier Amendment, I hope he will limit his acceptance of this defence to existing effluents only.

The third point is that Clause 3 may give river boards sufficient powers now. Clause 3 allows river boards to go to the civil court to seek an injunction when they apprehend that some offence is going to be committed; but that is an expensive, complicated and lengthy process, and it is by no means so expeditious, economical and convenient as resort to the police courts, which I hope the House will think that it is not reasonable to say would be sufficient in the circumstances.

This Amendment is not entirely acceptable to fishing interests. We realise that. Nor is it entirely acceptable to industrial or local interests. It is an attempt to get a fair compromise, and to leave in the hands of river boards who find themselves in the exceptional position of not having set up standards after seven years power so that they can still be effective bodies to maintain the purity of their rivers, and if possible to improve it.

Colonel Clarke

I beg to second the Amendment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) has said, this Amendment probably does not completely satisfy either the industrial interests or the fishing interests. At the same time, it strikes a fair balance between the rights of what I might term existing polluters and the welfare of the river generally. It is not only officialdom which has regard for the welfare of rivers, but also a great many other people who resort there for recreation, or who live near the river.

I slightly deprecate one thing my hon. Friend said, when he suggested that there must be a conflict between industrial and fishing or amenity interests. I do not think there need be necessarily. I believe that it would be enormously in the interest of industrial users and riparian owners if every river were so clean that trout could live in it, and if every estuary were so clean that salmon could run up it. Perhaps I might be allowed to quote an example from my own experience.

I am a little on both sides of the fence on this Bill. I support the fishing and amenity interests mainly, but I also have an industrial interest in that I am director of a shipping company. In the last 10 or 15 years, ship owners have had great anxiety and been put to great cost due to corrosion on the hulls of ships. It has become very much worse in the last few years, particularly in rivers such as the Tyne and the Thames, which happen to be the rivers concerned with the ships in which I am interested. No one quite knows the reason for it. We know that in both those places pollution has increased enormously in the last 15 years. We know that pollution generally is getting no better. Fishermen and those interested in amenities both have a common interest in wishing to obtain their objective more quickly. Therefore, let us work together as much as possible.

The Amendment has been very amply moved. I only want to emphasise that while it appears to be reasonable that some safeguard should be found for persons who, on the passing of this Bill will otherwise automatically become criminals, it is most vital that any defence given them should be only in respect of existing discharges and should in no way prejudice the future. We know well, from the history of pollution and the endeavours which have been made under existing legislation to combat it, of the checks, disillusionment and frustration that have taken place in the past. We want, by the passing of this Bill, to turn over a new leaf and to make an effort to change things in the future in this respect. I am certain that to pledge the future by allowing polluters to be excused under the Bill will be fatal to our object.

Mr. Philips Price

I wish to give general support to the Amendment and to refer more particularly, as I understand it will be in order, to my Amendment in Clause 8, line 20, concerning the upkeep and maintenance of appliances which otherwise might cause pollution. I think that there is a connection between that Clause and paragraph (c) of the Amendment we are now considering, which provides for the best practical means at a reasonable cost to render the matter entering a stream or that part thereof harmless and inoffensive.

My Amendment deals with that point in rather more detail, by laying it down that the river board may postulate that an offence may be committed if an appliance which an undertaking or a person may have is not kept in repair or, for instance, in the case of a tank, is not cleaned out. I moved an Amendment during the Committee stage on those lines, but the Minister thought that it went too far because it laid down a provision that repairs should be carried out, and that if they were not carried out that would constitute an offence. He thought—and I see his point—that at a time like this, when there are shortages, it might be impossible to carry out repairs.

My present Amendment is asking that there should be a contravention arising from the misuse of or failure to use or keep in repair any means which at the time of the contravention were available to the person committing the offence… That does not make it obligatory upon him to get new material. That is a point which links up with the Amendment just moved, and it is one which, I hope, the Minister will consider to see if it cannot be laid down that it shall constitute an offence if neglect of apparatus of this kind is not undertaken.

Mr. Fort

While I have much sympathy with the Amendment, I was pleased to hear that the Minister has accepted the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), which is, I think, rather more precise and clear. Indeed, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) would, I think have satisfied those with whom I have spoken in connection with industrial and municipal affairs had it not been for the restricting nature of the proviso about new discharges.

I want to make it quite plain to the House that those with whom I have spoken feel very strongly—I would say just as strongly as those who are concerned with the anglers—about the need for clean water. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) gave the House an example of how damaging to industrial affairs impure water may be, and there is no wish on the part of those connected with industry or with the municipalities to seek some legal way of avoiding or circumventing the intentions of the bylaws.

The restricting proviso which my hon. Friend has put into his Amendment makes it almost impracticable. It almost defeats the object he so rightly sets out to reach, because he places the municipalities, with their ever-increasing housing estates and the extra sewage which will be coming from them, and the industries which we also hope will be expanding, in a very difficult position by bringing in this proviso about the new discharges.

I do not think it is the wish of any of us that the passing of this Bill should result in severe penalties against those who in the course of their activities produce effluent. We do not wish to bring penalties against them, but to keep up a constant jabbing to make sure that they are adopting the best means technically available to deal with sewage. Those with whom I have spoken feel that my hon. Friend has failed to recognise fully the difficulties of those who are having, willy nilly, to produce effluents and sewage.

I myself have put down an Amendment which is very similar to that of the hon. Member for Carlisle, although I believe that it avoids some of the legal problems which his Amendment, as originally drafted, would confront the Minister. It is for that reason that I hope the House will support the Minister in his proposal to accept the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren) indicated dissent.

Mr. Fort

I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to accept it. Am I correct?

Mr. Dalton

I undertook that I would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle at the appropriate time.

6.30 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

It is not the first Amendment, but the second.

Mr. Fort

There has been no thought-reading on my part; that is a gift which unfortunately I do not possess. But I am glad that the Minister is accepting the best practical means in the Amendments put forward, and I hope and ask that the House will sustain the Minister in his decision on this matter.

Mr. MacColl (Widnes)

I do not propose to attempt to follow all the details of this exceedingly complicated and technical Bill, but with the general principle behind it, I think that everyone must be in the warmest sympathy.

I represent a constituency in which, so far as I can see, it would be exceedingly difficult to carry on with any degree of security without the benefit of some kind of protection as has been suggested, either in this Amendment, or, as I would much prefer, if I may allude to it, in the Amendment to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). The heavy chemical industry in Widnes has just celebrated its centenary and if in the earlier days it had had the same sense of gravity about river pollution as we all feel now there is no doubt that a much more careful method would have been adopted to prevent some of the disastrous things which have happened to the Mersey during the past 100 years.

The fact remains, however, that there is this basic industry which my right hon. Friend would appear to encourage to go there, because it would appear that that area is regarded by him as suitable for noxious industries and that it is desirable in his opinion, that we should suffer from it there. We cannot hope immediately to be able to avoid the danger of pollution, particularly in these days when it is difficult to carry out capital improvements. I can quite see that there are very real and practical difficulties about dealing with this problem at once, and I agree with the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) that there should be considerable and constant pressure on industry to prevent this kind of pollution.

I am quite certain that the members of the heavy chemical industry would be more relieved in mind if they knew there was no danger of legal proceedings being taken where they are doing everything possible and where the Minister is at any rate satisfied that they are attempting in the best way they can to carry on what is generally recognised as being a very important and basic industry in the country.

I hope, therefore, that what I understand my right hon. Friend to have said is true, and that he will take steps to this end. I say that in no sense of wanting to be regarded as a polluter. But if he does give protection to the heavy chemical industry, I hope he will do all he can to provide adequate capital resources for them, so that they may see that this kind of thing is stopped as quickly as possible. Then the day may come when one may be able to walk by the banks of the Mersey in comfort, even though it is not possible to bathe in it or to catch fish in it.

Mr. Robson-Brown

I support the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). As I see it, during the discussion today the interests have been those who consider the fishes rather than those who are primarily interested on behalf of the nation in providing both the loaves and the fishes. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) is good in intention but it only goes half way, which is not satisfactory. He seeks to distinguish between the hardened criminal and the first offender and deals more lightly with the hardened criminal, which is not traditional British justice.

As I understand the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle, it seeks to recognise the realities of the position so far as industry is concerned. Pollution is a question of degree, and I doubt whether there are many industrial concerns whose works or methods can guarantee absolute purity of any effluent. I know that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) said that in any case any industry desired to ensure in the performance of its daily task that the best practicable and reasonably available means had been used to render matter entering a stream harmless and inoffensive, but I think that the operative words, "harmless and inoffensive" are the important part of the Amendment. I do not think that that Amendment weakens the Bill, but rather that it strengthens it, and I am pleased to know that the Minister has indicated his willingness to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

It is a pleasant feature of this House that sometimes one is able to disagree not only with hon. Members on one's own side, but also, as in this case, with one's next-door neighbour, as he is in this instance, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. W. Robson-Brown). It may perhaps be that the fishing in his part of the Thames is not as good as it is in the pleasant part of the river running by Runnymede and Chertsey. There are a large number of fish still in that part of the river, but I regret to say that there are not so many as there were a generation ago, and they are much less lively. Therefore, there are a great many people in this country who are anxious to see that the interests of the fish are safeguarded.

Some people say that this is a very small and unimportant matter compared with such things as the hon. Member for Esher has been mentioning; but I think it very desirable that we should preserve those amenities so far as we can. Those who have spoken to me about this matter have pointed out that it is very unsatisfactory to find that reference is made to what is reasonable in these cases. Our experience in legal cases is that when one comes to balance the two things against each other, there is only one result. We talk about what is the reasonable cost to a great industrial undertaking, on the one hand, and, on the other, what is the value of the fishing to the man who fishes there; and there is apt to be no doubt about the result. Therefore, we feel that if an Amendment in any of these forms is accepted, it will be bad for the fish.

There are three alternative Amendments, as I understand it, and they are being discussed together. I feel rather like the man at the court-martial who was asked, "Do you object to being tried by me as president, or by any member of this court-martial?" To which he retorted "I object to the whole so-and-so lot of you." But I must deal with the Amendments one by one. Clearly the first one, that moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), is much the least objectionable. I hope that if it is necessary for us to accept one of these Amendments, it will be that one and not the later one in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), which I would describe, from the point of view of the fish and fishermen, as "the polluter's charter."

I recognise at once that it would apply only where no standard has been laid down. It has been said that is an exceptional case and that we need not worry about it; but I think that is just the sort of case one has to be careful about, where for some reason or other the board has not done its duty. There is no doubt about this—and the right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, correct me if I am wrong—that anyone who can show he is carrying on an industrial process which necessarily involves killing very many fish in the river is entitled to go on doing so. It sounds rather startling. I suggest that the House should hesitate very much before it agrees to a provision of that kind.

Mr. Turton

I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has given premature approval to an Amendment which has not even been explained by the hon. Member who put it down and before he has heard arguments against it. I refer to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). It is an Amendment which will destroy the object of the Bill, which is supported, I think, by the Minister of Local Government and Planning and by Members in all parts of the House.

It seems that the Bill, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) as a Bill for the prevention of pollution, is rapidly becoming a Bill for the encouragement of pollution. I want the right hon. Gentleman to think again on the very premature decision he has given. The Amendment deals with the situation in which a standard has not been prescribed in respect of any stream. That will apply to the upper reaches of a river. That is the part where no standard will be applied because the standard required is one of absolute purity. In those upper reaches where there is at present a discharge, it is only reasonable that the industry responsible for the discharge should have the sort of protection suggested in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). To give this wide general power of licence under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle would be disastrous to all the upper reaches of rivers, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point.

The next objection I have to the proposed Amendment is that the House is forgetting—at any rate the Members who have so far addressed the House appear to have forgotten—that until the expiration of seven years no proceedings will be taken except on the authority of the Minister. Therefore, the Amendment will apply in eight years' time. The only justification which I have heard advanced in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle is that at the present time it is difficult for industries to stop being polluters because of lack of materials and labour, but surely that argument cannot weigh in eight years' time.

I am speaking for river boards who have carried on their function throughout the last 70 years in industrial areas with success because they were armed with effective powers. Step by step in this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has taken those powers away from river boards, so that our river boards now feel that they cannot stop pollution under the Bill as it is at present framed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not make the position of river boards in industrial areas completely ineffective, as he would do if he were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle.

The West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board has acted under effective powers for the last 70 years. If the right hon. Gentleman would read their last report, which gives the full history of their activities, he would see that it is only the fact that they were armed with effective powers of bringing prosecutions that has made them able in many cases to bring legal proceedings to clear up the filth and sewage that existed in the rivers before the creation of the river boards.

6.45 p.m.

I appeal to all hon. Members who represent Yorkshire constituencies, to whatever party they may belong, to see that this case is not given away. We did have in the late nineteenth century very horrible rivers in Yorkshire, but because we were armed with powers we have been able to clean up those rivers. It will be a very sad day for Parliament if, by the action of the right hon. Gentleman, which I believe is premature, the whole case is given away.

Mr. Fort

How many prosecutions have actually been brought?

Mr. Turton

I could not tell my hon. Friend how many in the last 70 years, but there have been a very large number. Some cases, in the early stages, went to the High Court. Industrialists and other would-be polluters soon learned that they were dealing with a reasonable rivers board, and in recent years prosecutions have diminished.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

There are two Amendments before the House. The first was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent). The second, in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) has not been explained, but the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he is prepared to accept it in principle. The difference between the two Amendments is that the first is limited to cases of existing pollution at the date of the coming into operation of the Measure, whereas the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle is quite unlimited and would, were it operated, let out any case of future pollution, whenever started, perhaps 25 years hence. It is true that both the Amendments are concerned only with the situation in which no standard has been laid down, so that they are limited in scope. There will undoubtedly be cases where no standard is laid down for some little time to come.

The difference is extremely important, in this way. We have at the moment a number of industrial concerns and local authorities creating pollution in a manner which is either not an offence at all, or does not come under any existing legislation or under common law. Where we find those circumstances, it seems reasonable to say: "We cannot possibly, by passing a Measure of this sort, land them in the extraordinary expense which they might possibly incur, or the possibility of prosecution." Therefore, some special steps have to be taken to enable them to carry on.

The second Amendment would deal with the case of someone opening up a new factory, for example, in six months' time, after the passing of the Bill and before any bylaws setting up a standard can be formulated. The factory which succeeded in doing that need only show that it is doing its best to prevent pollution, and it would have a perfect defence against any prosecution, until bylaws were formulated. Does the hon. Member for Carlisle really think that in the event of bylaws being formulated three months, six months or a year after that, when the factory is erected and is in operation, and when thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent, it will be practical politics to say: "Now that we have promulgated the bylaws we are going to close you down because you have disregarded the Act?" Of course not. It means that when anyone starts a source of pollution before bylaws are made he will acquire a vested interest under the proposed Amendment which will drive a coach and horses through the whole of the Bill. For that reason, there is the whole world of difference between the two Amendments.

We are in the unfortunate—it may be fortunate—position of not knowing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman will say. He merely indicated that he has in principle accepted something which is not very definite. I beg him to consider very deeply what he will have to say and to indicate that, while to some extent he accepts the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle, he is at all events sympathetic to the principle underlying the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend and also to say that he does not intend to open the door to new effluents, but will limit this provision severely to cases which genuinely cannot be helped.

Mr. Odey

One gathers that the Minister's mind is inclined towards accepting in general principle the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). If that is so, I suggest that he might look again at the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), which seeks in general principle to cover the same point but contains wording which appears to offer certain advantages.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

I should like to say a word about the principle behind some of these Amendments. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not introduce into the Bill the principle that, a priori, a factory is more important than a river. That seems to be the assumption behind some Amendments. Just because the factory is man-made and the river God-made, it does not follow that man ought to be in front of God there.

Yet the principle seems to be that, provided a factory can establish the point that it has taken all practicable measures to purify an effluent, apparently, if the effluent is poisonous, the whole river can be poisoned because bylaws have not been made. I suggest that my right hon. Friend might consider devising a form of words which would not put a factory necessarily and a priori in front of a river. There should be equality between them. What I have suggested seems to be the danger of the principle lying behind some of the Amendments.

Mr. Hargreaves

It might be as well if I now speak on the Amendment which has been under discussion. I cannot move it at present, but I shall do so in due course. It ought to be said, first of all, that the Amendment begins by saying: Where a standard has not been prescribed.… The purpose of the Bill is to enable the river boards to lay down bylaws after negotiating over a period of time with the people who are using the river for one purpose or another and after making various tests. Every user of the river will have the opportunity of consultation prior to the making of a bylaw.

If there is then objection to the bylaws, an approach may be made to the Minister and the Minister will then be called upon to hold a public inquiry. Even after that time an approach may be made by the interested parties to the Minister prior to the confirmation of the bylaw. There is obviously ample provision for consultation prior to the setting of standards and the framing of bylaws, and I suggest that that fully meets the point made so eloquently by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) about new effluents. Any new effluent creates a need immediately for a standard and ultimately for a bylaw. There is necessity for consultation, negotiation, tests and a standard immediately a new effluent occurs.

What has been said about an industrial process continuing for eight years before a standard is laid down and bylaws are framed is begging the whole question. We must recognise that, while the river boards will be anxious to lay down standards and make bylaws, it will not be possible to do all that work at once. It needs adequate and competent staff. It may well be that not all river boards will be equally eager, and some may lag behind in the setting up of standards and the framing of bylaws. Let us recognise what follows from that. Is it not the case that, if no bylaw is framed, the whole penal weight of Clause 2 will fall upon an offender? The river board might find it more effective to proceed by neglecting to make bylaws and, instead, using the whole weight of Clause 2 against such offenders. Safeguards ought to be provided.

I would draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) the fact that the Amendment is not designed to protect factories. Neither factories nor industries are mentioned in it. It arises as a result of the desire of my own local authority, expressed at their monthly meeting and communicated to me by the town clerk of Carlisle, that their interests shall be safeguarded in case the river board which has already been created finds it better to proceed by using the weight of Clause 2 instead of negotiating and preparing standards and bylaws.

As hon. Members will know, the lovely River Eden has several tributaries—the Petteril, the Caldew and the Little Caldew. On the Little Caldew there are 13 industrial firms—textile works and dyeworks. All contribute in some small measure to the pollution of that stream and the millrace which flows into the Eden. In spite of pollution the River Eden is still very beautiful and full of fish. There must be an attempt on the part of all of us to balance the needs of industry, the local authority and the amenity value and beauty of such a river.

7.0 p.m.

My Amendment is not an attempt to meet those factories alone. Upstairs the Committee was ready to recognise the fact that particular factories might make-approaches by negotiation prior to the framing of bylaws, and that if objections were made at a later stage they could meet the Minister and have a local inquiry. I think their needs were met in that regard. In my view it is impossible in the beginning stages completely to clean up the tributaries to which I have referred. It is a gradual process in which we can encourage the river boards, and, after seven years, they ought to be able to carry on their work without any assistance from the central government. However, there is the danger that where bylaws are not made the weight of Clause 2 falls on the offender.

Until the stage is reached when standards have been set and bylaws framed in consultation with all concerned, the protection provided under this Amendment is reasonable for the local authorities, for the factories concerned, and for safeguarding the amenity value and beauty of the rivers which this Bill attempts to serve.

Mr. Renton

The point which we have been discussing for the last half hour or so is the most important point in the Bill, because it touches upon the dilemma which all people who wish to see rivers purified have to face, namely, the fact that the community has established certain ways which pollute the rivers, and it involves immense cost to try to alter those ways, especially quickly.

Bearing in mind that river boards will have a long period in time for fixing standards, one seriously hopes that the hypothesis upon which the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) and the other two Amendments are based will never arise; in other words, the hypothesis that the standards will not have been fixed. If, however, as the responsible Minister administering the Act, the Minister feels seriously that there must be some kind of provision on the lines of one or other of these Amendments, I most earnestly hope that he will keep an open mind as to which of the three Amendments gets nearest towards fulfilling the desired method of achieving the object. It seems to me that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, being much nearer and much more logical in its application than the other two Amendments which may be considered, is possibly the best.

However, for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) I am against all three Amendments. Whichever has to be accepted, I ask the Minister most earnestly to consider the following point, which I put to him as one who has had some experience of practice in the criminal courts, including practice before lay justices who would have to try these offences. In the Amendment of my hon. Friend and in the other Amendments, special defences are raised. Special defences are, as we know, a mixed blessing. The burden of proof is normally upon the prosecution, but whenever a bunch of lay justices sees a special defence in any Statute their minds im- mediately leap to the possibility of placing the burden of proof upon the defence.

Although I have no argument to raise other than this in favour of the polluters, because I am dead against them, I say in fairness to the polluters that if we are to enable special defences of this kind to be raised, we should also make it clear in the Bill that the onus continues to lie upon the prosecution in spite of those special defences. There is nothing in this Bill at the moment which would make that clear to lay justices.

Mr. Mitchison

I was glad to be able to support the representations of my own local authority as regards sewage disposal. They have made similar representations to me on this matter. I also had representations made directly in the opposite sense from the local fishery board which still subsists in that area. I have been listening with care and attention to all that has been said, and I beg my right hon. Friend to give this matter considerably more examination than he can have been able to give it so far.

I come down without much hesitation on the side of the river, the pure water, the anglers or the fish, whichever is the right interest to name in this connection. Incidentally, I always like the way in which anglers who want to kill the fish identify themselves with its interests. May I state my reasons as shortly as I can? I do not think it is an easy matter, but what we all want to see is that in almost every case standards are laid down. These Amendments are to apply only in cases where standards are not laid down. I agree in that respect with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves)—that is all we want. That will take time, and meanwhile one has to remember that there can be no prosecution at all except by the Attorney-General or by a river board. That is exceedingly important.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Surely the common law rights remain absolutely unchanged?

Mr. Mitchison

I speak subject to correction, but I have in mind Clause 8 of the Bill. Under the Clause with which we are dealing, prosecutions have to be brought either by the Attorney-General or by a river board.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

May I intervene again for clarification? The Minister has put down an Amendment to Clause 10. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the top of page 12 of the Bill, he will see that subsection (5) now says: Save as expressly provided by this Act, nothing contained in it shall affect the law relating to nuisance. If the Minister's Amendment is moved and accepted, this subsection will read: Nothing contained in this Act shall affect the law relating to nuisance. So the common law rights will remain absolutely untouched.

Mr. Mitchison

I am not sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has got the point quite right. What we are considering is prosecutions under this particular part of the Bill. Those prosecutions, if I read the Bill aright, have to be brought either by the Attorney-General or by a river board. We are not considering the very different case of a nuisance at common law. I may be wrong, but that is how I read it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I thoroughly agree with, and, indeed, I defer to, the hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment on this point, but the overriding risk of the common law action remains in this respect, as in all others.

Mr. Mitchison

I hope that the right hon. and gallant Member is on this occasion a little unduly suspicious of a Greek bearing a present, because I am trying to support his Amendment as against more sweeping ones but say that his Amendment goes too far.

Perhaps I may elaborate my reasons for supporting the Amendment. As I see it, there can be no doubt that the great majority of prosecutions will be brought under those sorts of auspices. Therefore, what we are considering is a defence which is to be put up against the public authority or the water authority. When I look at the terms proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, which are, I think, the most sweeping ones, I feel that they go very much too far. It is true that the burden of proving reasonableness is put upon the defence, but to have to convict a man of not doing a reasonable thing always seems to me to be a very unfortunate legal expedient and one to be avoided. These words are not new—they have occurred in this type of Measure before; and it is notorious that it has been exceedingly difficult to get convictions and to prevent pollution on that account.

It is only the existence of a rather more sweeping Act—by which, if one polluted everybody's water, one was not in practice immune, but if someone killed a single British fish, or even its food, he was convicted—that saved the rivers from worse pollution. Therefore, I feel that that particular Amendment would be, as an hon. Member opposite has said, a bit of "a polluters' charter." I do not hesitate to quote or to agree with hon. Members opposite when I have seen a remarkable agreement on rather different lines between my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald).

Then one asks, "What is the mischief? How far are industry, on the one hand, or the local authority, in dealing with its sewage and so on, on the other hand, going to be held to unreasonable standards or some unreasonable degree of work or speed of work?" and I come to the conclusion that this is not really a matter that we should try to deal with by an exception Clause of this sort. The real protection lies in the limitations on prosecution, and I should have liked personally to have seen in the Bill, if it is not too late to put it there, some method of hurrying up or even of obliging, river boards to lay down standards in appropriate cases. That would be much more satisfactory than leaving any of these loopholes.

7.15 p.m.

If we are to leave any loophole at all, there is a logical case for the loophole which is confined to new effluents and which also deals with prevention of outflow into the stream, really a most material point; and that, highly qualified, is the most I can offer to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), because I feel that it is a mistake to accept any of these Amendments. The loopholes which we make will prove to be as large as similar loopholes have proved to be in the past, and one has to remember that local authorities and industry have usually both the means and the voice to express themselves and that the fisherman resembles the fish in this: that he is numerous but silent.

Captain Waterhouse (Leicester, South-East)

I was not in the House when the Minister gave his nod, therefore I do not quite know to how much of the Amendments he assented. I agree, however, with the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and with the many views that have been expressed that we are going on to extremely dangerous ground if these Amendments are inserted into the Bill and that the Bill may well become, far from a Bill to prevent, a Bill to perpetuate, or even to promote, pollution.

If the Minister wants to accept some Amendments on such lines as this, ways and means can be found. Like the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I have been asked by the municipal authority of a large city to support the Amendment. I have written and given my reasons why I am certainly not prepared to do so, in entirety at least, I am the last person in the House to try to endeavour, at a time like the present, to make local authorities or any other authorities spend vast sums of money on any schemes that are not absolutely essential. It may be that in certain cases it is quite impossible to set up any plant or apparatus which can purify certain effluents, but when we say that they have only to prove that no such apparatus is "reasonably available," surely we are giving them far too large a loophole.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wishes to accept the substance of the first Amendment, he might leave out the three words "and reasonably available." The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), when advocating his Amendment, was wise enough to omit them himself and used only the words "the best practicable means." If the Minister were to include in the Bill "the best practicable means," which takes in, by and large, everything that can and should be done without saying that it has to be immediately available or reasonably available, that Amendment might not have injurious results.

I am not quite certain whether the Minister's nod included also the Amendment in page 2, line 25, at the end, insert: (3) The said subsection shall not penalise the discharge into the stream of the effluent from the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority by means of a storm water overflow if the storm water overflow has been so constructed and is so used that the normal flow of sewage in the sewer is diluted by rain water so as to prevent or reduce any undue pollution.

Mr. Dalton

That has been dealt with.

Captain Waterhouse

Then I confine my remarks to the first of these Amendments and I urge the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to consider it in detail—or, better still, now, because we are on Report stage and there will be no further opportunity of making the alteration—to accept the Amendment if the three words "and reasonably available" are left out.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

I want to appeal to my right hon. Friend, as other hon. Members have done, to think again on whether he should accept any of these Amendments. I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) that none of these Amendments is necessary and if any is less objectionable than others, it is the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent).

I was frankly shocked to get the impression that my right hon. Friend was going to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). It seemed to me that my hon. Friend let the cat out of the bag when he said he was not so interested in the industrial effects of the matter but from the point of view of the local authorities. It is perfectly clear that tonight we are between two almost sinister and very powerful pressure groups. One is the point of view of industry represented by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) in his Amendment, and the other the point of view of the local authorities represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle in his Amendment.

But we have other interests which we, as hon. Members, ought to seek to protect—the interests of the general public, the health of the people, the defence of amenities, the defence of anglers and various other sporting organisations. I hope my right hon. Friend will not be too placatory to these powerful interests, but will also take account of the points I have mentioned. I very strongly urge my right hon. Friend not to commit himself to accepting any of these Amendments tonight, but to see whether he can be as accommodating as he was in Committee and think over the matter a little further to see whether anything can be done in another place, if anything is really necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

It certainly seems that the House finds itself in a difficulty with the Amendments before it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) said, ours was by nature of a compromise Amendment, but I and my hon. Friends would be willing to withdraw this Amendment if all the other Amendments were also withdrawn. Then the Minister would have a clear field to consider the matter when the Bill goes to another place. We undoubtedly desire to find some modus vivendi, but I am not anxious that any kind of polluters' charter should be given. We have discussed the matter for a considerable time and, if the sponsors of the other Amendments will undertake not to move their Amendments, I would have the greatest pleasure in asking my hon. Friends whether they find it possible to withdraw this Amendment, and we could then pass on.

Mr. Dalton

We have had a very interesting discussion on this group of Amendments—

Brigadier Peto (Devon, North)

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment to call attention to something that he said in Committee: I think the Committee were inclined to be a little soft at one stage this morning, and I do not think we want to let off new arrivals who proceed to discharge effluents into streams. We do not want them mollycoddled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th February, 1951, c. 183.]

Mr. Dalton

I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I always enjoy having my past speeches quoted—provided they are accurately quoted. It is helpful to debate. It seems that there is a feeling in all parts of the House that this matter should be looked at again to see whether there is an alternative form of words. Earlier, when we were discussing a previous bunch of Amendments, I said that in principle I was always open to considera- tion of verbal improvements such as have been suggested and in principle I was in agreement with the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) which is most simply described as the "best practicable…means" Amendment. I said that I thought there was much to be said for that Amendment. I did not commit myself to the exact wording but I thought there was something to be said for it.

This is a discussion about the transitional period, and I entirely agree with those who say that the transitional period should be abbreviated as much as possible. We want the bylaws passed and the river boards to take up their duties and fulfil them, and we want the standards laid down and enforced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), after all, is the father of this Bill—I have only taken it over at a later stage—and I wholly agree with what he said. He hopes that we shall be on the side of pure rivers and that we shall not put the interests of man-made things before the interests of the beauties of nature, or words to that effect. That is the view which enthused all hon. Members in Committee and is generally accepted in the House. We do not want polluters' charters; indeed the whole purpose of the Bill is to destroy pollution.

The practical question is what is the best way to deal with this transitional period? If it is common ground—and I think it is—that we want the transitional period to be over quickly, what are we to do in the interval? I have listened with attention to the debate. I do not think any of the Amendments is word-perfect—certainly not. We are now at the Report stage and the only further resource left to us is that of another place for some new Amendment, if none of these Amendments is carried tonight but all are withdrawn. In the light of the discussion, that may be the best thing to do, without prejudice to the exact form of words evolved in the interval. I think that, on the whole, that would be the best course. I will undertake to give very close personal attention to the matter and to consult with those who have taken a particular interest in it, of whom there are several on both sides of the House. We will try to get some generally accepted formula.

I noted the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), with whom I worked once at the Board of Trade and therefore always pay personal attention to what he says now, as I used to then; and I hope that is mutual. He suggested that it might meet some of the difficulty if we left out the words "and reasonably available" from the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle. I will look into that. What attracted me to that Amendment in the first instance was the words "best practicable…means." I think that is a reasonable proposition. It would be subject to test and the Minister would have his view about it.

I confess that I was thinking a little of the local authority activities, new housing estates and so on, and it seemed to me that if the authority housing its people was employing the "best practicable…means"—and we understand all the difficulties about the capital investment programme, and so on—it was going a little far to say that it should still be subject to prosecution.

Mr. Bevan

There is no very sharp division here, but what we do not want to do is to import into the Bill a statement which gives a presumptive right to the poisoner as against the river.

Mr. Dalton

I quite agree and we shall have carefully to consider where the onus of proof should lie, and so on. I think the best thing would be, since this is a non-party Measure in a large degree and the general consensus of opinion is that we ought to look at this again, if all three Amendments were withdrawn, and I will then give great consideration to an Amendment which may be proposed in another place. It will come before the House again. I suggest this is the best way of dealing with it.

Mr. Nugent

In the light of that undertaking—

Mr. Speaker

If any other hon. Member wants to speak after the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

There is no sharp division on either side of the House on this matter. I wish to ask the Minister a question about what will happen if he later finds that a firm or organisation say that they have done all that they humanly can do to prevent pollution but, despite that, there is pollution such as we have in the Chumet River at Leek below the dyeworks, where all life is extinct for 12 miles down the river. In such cases a decision has to be made. Is that factory to be allowed to continue causing that pollution?

It seems to me that modern man has to make a choice. What is the purpose in living and how can we live the full life? If rivers like the Chumet, the Trent, the Dove and the Manifold, which 30, 40 or 50 years ago were famous Izaac Walton territory are being completely destroyed, the time will come when man will have to balance his economic desires with psychological ones. I wish to make a special appeal. In the Leek Conservancy and the Trent River we have this pollution.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

It is polluted before it comes to Stoke.

Mr. Davies

My hon. Friend also realises that there is unfortunately heavy pollution in Stoke also, but we will not discuss that because all the North Staffordshire representatives are united on the need for preserving the amenities of life in that area.

Accordingly, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that if this Bill is passed in its present form we are not departing altogether from the old understanding that all pollution is illegal. I hope that a careful balance of the amenities of society and of the industrial considerations will be made, because as this island is becoming more populated and industry is growing it means that more of our rivers and our countryside are being destroyed. Man does not live by bread alone, and I desire that at least some of the amenities of life shall be maintained for the countryside, even at the expense of occasional extra cost to industry.

Mr. Nugent

In view of the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given that he will look at these three Amendments in the light of the discussion we have had, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment. I should like to make just one comment, namely that this Amendment is proposed in the context of a river board not having set up standards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who made a timely intervention to save his child from getting a completely dirty face, may be assured that our wish also is to keep it clean.

I would point out to the Minister that the words of which he complained in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) do not appear in my Amendment. My Amendment applies to existing effluents only. I hope that when the Minister comes to consider this matter, he will bear in mind the great weight of feeling in the House on that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out: (subject to the foregoing provision). The purpose of this Amendment is clarification. It paves the way for another Amendment I shall move in a few moments.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson (Ilford, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you propose to call the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself? I am referring to the Amendment in page 2, line 16, to leave out from the beginning, to "subject," in line 20, and to insert: (2) A person who discharges into a sewer any trade effluent the discharge of which is not authorised by the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act, 1937, or is made without compliance with the conditions subject to which it was authorised and with the bye-laws under that Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) of this section and the local authority into whose sewer the trade effluent is discharged or through whose sewer it passes shall not be committing an offence punishable under this Act by permitting such trade effluent to enter into a stream.

Mr. Speaker

No, I am not calling that because it is partly covered by a subsequent Amendment, in page 2, line 25, on which the two Amendments can be discussed together.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dalton

I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert: except where either—

1. (a) that matter was discharged into a sewer of the local authority without their consent and they were entitled to refuse to receive the discharge into the sewer; or
482
2. (b) that matter is discharged from their sewer or sewerage disposal works into a sewer vested in another local authority and that other authority consent, or are not entitled to refuse, to receive the discharge into the sewer vested in them."

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the local authority who discharge an effluent into a stream shall be responsible if there is pollution unless the matter complained of was discharged illegally into their sewer. In that case, the responsibility shall rest on the person from whom the polluted matter emanated. A local authority cannot be held responsible if someone has illegally flooded their sewer; it is the illegal flooder who is responsible.

Mr. Hutchinson

I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the intention of this Amendment is to make it clear that a person who discharges noxious effluent into a sewer of a local authority is to be regarded as the person who permits it to enter the stream and is responsible for the pollution. I am bound to say that subsection (2), to which I put down an Amendment, is certainly not drafted in language which makes perfectly clear the point the right hon. Gentleman has now made. One can read that subsection and obtain from it an entirely opposite impression from what its meaning is intended to be.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman considers that the Amendment now before us will make it quite plain that the local authority have no responsibility where the effluent is discharged into a sewer, either without their consent or in circumstances under which the terms of consent to the discharge of the effluent into the sewer have not been complied with. I am not quite satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment effectively meets that latter point, and there is an Amendment to this proposed Amendment on the Order Paper, which stands in my name, which is intended to make that point perfectly clear.

If, in fact, an effluent is discharged into the local authority sewer contrary to the conditions under which the consent has been given, I suggest that without the Amendment I have put down to the Amendment we are now discussing it is not certain that the local authority cannot be regarded as having consented to receive the effluent. If the right hon. Gentleman felt able to accept my Amendment to his proposed Amendment, I think it would be quite plain that the local authority cannot be held to have consented to receive an effluent if the effluent does not comply with the conditions under which it has been agreed that the effluent shall be discharged into the sewer. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept my Amendment to his proposed Amendment and thus make perfectly plain the meaning of this subsection, which, to say the least, is a little obscure.

Mr. Dalton

I know that the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson) has had much experience in dealing with legislation of this kind, but I am advised that his Amendment is not really necessary and that the meaning of my Amendment is perfectly clear. I am advised that if a local authority has consented to receive a trade effluent on certain conditions and those conditions are not complied with, the discharge is one to which they have not consented. I should have thought that to be a commonsense interpretation. If, on the other hand, the consent is unconditional, the trade is still bound and limited by the trade effluent notice which the trade will serve on the authority. That is what I am advised.

Mr. Hutchinson

The difficulty is that if a local authority has consented to receive an effluent upon certain conditions and the effluent is discharged into the sewer without their consent, but it then turns out that the conditions have not been complied with, it makes the position difficult for the local authority. I would be prepared to agree that the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon the Amendment might be accepted as the correct one, but I am concerned to make it quite clear that the consent given subject to conditions is not to be treated as a consent if at the time when the effluent was received the local authority was not aware that the conditions had not been performed by the person discharging the effluent into the sewer.

Mr. Dalton

I am prepared to make this suggestion to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Would he consult with one of my legal advisers and see whether he and they could arrive at an agreement about the matter? I am advised that the Amendment to my Amendment is not necessary, but on the other hand it seems that there is an element of doubt; we could consider it in another place. If what I suggest is acceptable to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am prepared to make it a proposal.

Mr. Hutchinson

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will take the course that he has suggested.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was really talking to his Amendment, which was not moved. It is clear from what he says that he does not wish to move his Amendment to the Amendment. Is that so?

Mr. Hutchinson

That is so. I no longer desire to move the Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert: (3) The Minister may by order (which shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made by him) direct that the said subsection shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge of water raised or drained from a mine into any specified stream or part of a stream in the same condition in which it is raised or drained from the mine. We now come to a subsection which deals with the water which is pumped out of mines, and in the vast majority of cases out of coal mines. This subsection was not in the Bill when originally it was before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee moved this subsection as an Amendment; it was accepted; and it is now, of course, part of the Bill. I do not quarrel with the principle involved in the subsection, which seems to be reasonable enough, namely, that there has to be special provision in the case of mine water which has to be raised and put some place.

The objection that I have to the subsection as it now stands is that, prima facie, polluting water which is to be taken out of a mine is to be legalised, and it is only in the exceptional case where the Minister seeks by regulation to make the pumping of such polluting water an offence that it will be an offence. My Amendment turns it round the other way. It proposes that, instead of making the polluting water normally legal, such water from a mine shall be an offence in the ordinary way, but that the Minister may by regulation make any exceptions that he pleases. That was indeed the suggestion put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in Committee, and I think it commended itself to the Committee.

7.45 p.m.

It may be that there will be little time to review the position between now and when the Bill comes into operation. There will be, I think, two months under the Bill as it stands and such additional time as may be taken to put the Bill on the Statute Book. If that be so, I should certainly have no objection to deferring the operation of my proposed Amendment for some reasonable period, say, six months or even a year, but it is wrong, in a Bill which aims at preventing pollution, to put in a subsection which expressly legalises pollution, and only makes the polluter an offender by regulation. There is a matter of principle here, and for that reason I have moved my Amendment.

Colonel Clarke

I beg to second the Amendment.

Although I am only seconding the Amendment, I feel more concerned about it than my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I also have no quarrel with the principle of the subsection as it stands at present, but I am totally against giving a free hand for all time to collieries, and that includes the tin collieries in Cornwall, to discharge the water that they pump from the mine directly into the nearest stream. I am in favour of the procedure whereby the process should be reversed, and that they should do it under licence, where necessary.

I am reinforced in putting forward this proposal by three things. First, in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill, I find that this subsection was not included at all. I understand that the collieries there found it unnecessary. I do not say that the same thing applies to all the collieries in England, but a great many of them are very similar, and quite a number of the collieries in England could do without this privilege, just as they do in Scotland.

I should like to say one word about the nature of the water that is pumped from these mines and why it is so dangerous to fish life and other life in the rivers. In that connection, I want to refer to a small volume written by Mr. H. D. Turing for the British Field Sports Society entitled "Pollution." I have several copies of it, and if the Minister has not seen it. I will give him a copy afterwards. One of the subjects that Mr. Turing went into in Volume 3 was the pollution from mine water of certain rivers, including the Weir.

He says that while in certain cases water pumped from a mine is comparatively clean, not infrequently it contains a great deal of ochre water, which is water impregnated with fine clay and oxide of iron. This ochre water forms a deposit on the bed of the stream sometimes two or three inches deep, and it completely sterilises all plant life as well as animal and fish life. The little insects that live under the stones in a stream are asphyxiated and overcome. This deposit is dropped by the river when it is running fast. It is very easily precipitated. If that is the case, how more easily would it be precipitated if the water were first allowed to go into some sort of pond or settling tank and then go on again. It is obvious that it is a very simple thing to do, and it would not be expensive to make the pond. It would be wrong to allow this ochre water to destroy all life in the rivers, and to do more than that because in destroying the bacteriological life one is destroying nature's own process for improving rivers and clearing other pollution—the bacteria break up other forms of pollution, particularly organic sewage.

I am reinforced by one other matter. The collieries would be ready to do something about this. In the National Coal Board's proposals for the next 15 years, there are, in section 82 of the second technical appendix, some hopeful ideas expressed. The tenor of the whole section is that whereas in the past little effort has been made to clean water from collieries, much more would be done in the future. I suggest that it would be well worth while reversing the process and giving a licence where it is really necessary but not giving a carte blanche for every colliery for all time to do exactly what it likes about this matter.

Mr. Harold Davies

While I agree in the main with the Amendment, I should like to ask the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), whether he would be prepared to put in certain safeguards which may be necessary in mining districts. We can see the effect of pollution by iron pyrites only too well in the hilly districts in North Staffordshire, where water used to be pumped willy-nilly. But there may be an occasion when there may not be time to appeal to the Minister to make a regulation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), with his technical knowledge of mining, will agree.

If there is a terrible accident, such as that which happened in Scotland, where there is flooding with slime running into the pit, then to save life and limb it might be necessary to pump water into the river immediately. We should be in a serious position if we inserted a Clause which made it an offence to do this to save life and limb. I should like to hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite their point of view on an exceptional case of that kind.

Mr. Lindgren

The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), said that this Amendment reversed the procedure laid down in the Clause. The Clause says that water from a mine is not considered to be a polluter but that the Minister has the power to grant applications in regard to certain streams or parts of streams. The hon. Member's Amendment turns it the other way round. All the water is to be considered as polluting, and the Minister can make exceptions. Frankly, that alternative would lead to a good deal of unnecessary interference with the mining industry. It would also cost a very large sum of money, and very large volumes of water would have to be dealt with, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) knows.

Colonel Clarke

I take it, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that estimates have been made as to the amount of money involved. Can he tell me how much it would cost to make the settling ponds of which I spoke?

Mr. Lindgren

I have not got an actual figure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was generous enough, in view of his past association with the mining industry, to admit that under the National Coal Board much greater attention is being paid to the purity of water and the prevention of pollution than was paid in the old days. He agreed that the declared intention of the National Coal Board was to take even more steps to prevent pollution. Surveys have taken place at various mines, and I am informed that the problem is serious in at least 100 mines which would be affected. The prospect of having to investigate each of these cases in detail, as the Minister would have to under this Amendment, is formidable.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

There is nothing in my Amendment to prevent the Minister, from the start, making an exempting order in respect of the whole 100 mines.

Mr. Lindgren

That may be a legal way, but it does not seem to me to be the right way to solve the problem. The Clause as it stands deals with the problem. Where there is bad pollution it gives the Minister the right to interfere, and where there are streams, or parts of streams, where the Minister wants to take action, he can take it under the Clause. To exclude all cases and then to give an exemption from the exclusion, seems to be a rather complicated method.

I am sure that everyone agrees with the intention of the Clause. It is far better for the river boards, in conjunction with the National Coal Board and the mining officials of certain areas, to discuss the problems in relation to certain rivers. There is the protection of Clause 2 (3) if the river board, after such consultation, consider that the position is no longer reasonable. In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon, South, will withdraw his Amendment, and accept the assurance that the river boards and the National Coal Board intend to attempt to deal with this matter fully.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I was a little disappointed at the hon. Gentleman's attitude. Before I come to that, let me reply to the request from the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) that we should clear up the situation. He asked what was our attitude towards action taken, as inevitably might happen, in emergency circumstances in respect of some colliery disaster, or even some threatened disaster. I should say for myself, and I think my hon. Friends will agree, that we should be only too willing to have words inserted to the effect that: nothing in this Clause shall interfere with the right and the duty of the National Coal Board to take any emergency action necessary for the safeguarding of life and limb. I am sure that that position needs to be safeguarded and that we should all agree to the insertion of words to that effect.

To deal with the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think that he appreciates the enormous blanket exemption which is being given by this subsection. It provides: the said subsection shall not…penalise the discharge of water raised or drained from a mine into any specified stream or part of a stream in the same condition in which it is raised or drained from the mine. That is a blanket exemption, and nobody in the House can criticise the action of the Minister on that, but, if we turn it round and say that the Minister may give exemptions, it is open to any others to inquire of the Minister why he has given these exemptions, to criticise him and to raise the matter in the House.

8.0 p.m.

The very fact that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there are something like 100 of these cases—and the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. H. Davies) has pleaded most eloquently the cause of the rivers which in the past have been polluted or destroyed by such action—shows the need of some such provision. The Parliamentary Secretary confirmed the statement of the hon. Member for Leek when he said that in 100 cases there is action of this kind going on now. I quite agree that we cannot put all these things straight in a moment, but we ought to bring the pressure of this House to bear on this difficulty.

I remember that, in the old days, it was very difficult to get the collieries to pay any attention to the burning of tips, or "bings" as we call them in Scotland, but, when there was a danger of air-raids and a civil defence scheme was in operation, it was astonishing to find how frequently fires which had been burning for half a century were extinguished with great promptitude. It proved that it was not impossible to deal with these things, because there was the power of pressure.

Here, we ask that the power of pressure should be entrusted in the House. The Minister will have the whole weight of those who are desirous of carrying on industry to support him, and, in particular, the whole weight of hon. Members who represent mining areas, more particularly those where colliery workings may be prejudiced by a careless, harsh or unduly rapid use of these powers. Very often, the miners themselves, who have to live in these surroundings and have to walk along the banks of these streams, will be only too willing to see pressure brought to bear in order that the streams should be cleared up. Why should a miner never see a pure stream unless he goes on a coach tour somewhere else?

Mr. Harold Davies

They are the best fishermen.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

They are, indeed, as we all know, and they go great distances in order to indulge in that sport.

I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has fully appreciated the weight which would normally attach to the acceptance of a provision such as we have in mind here in a declaration of its interest by this House and the acceptance of that declaration by the Minister. I beg him to think again. I do not think that, in this position, I could counsel my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

I beg the Minister to see whether he cannot, at any rate, give an undertaking that he will bring this discussion to the notice of his right hon. Friend, and that, if possible, in another place, it may be that some form of words could be agreed upon between us. It is not a small thing. In 100 cases, by the Parliamentary Secretary's own statement, this pollution is going on now, and we propose to give a statutory exemption which will remove it from the provisions of this Bill. I do not think the House should accept that.

Mr. Lindgren

I am afraid I could not give the undertaking for which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asks. We have the mining industry going on at the present time, and we simply cannot stop it. After all, the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that, if we reversed the process, in fact, we would immediately have to give exemption to industry, as it is at the moment.

We feel that it is much more reasonable to deal with the matter as the Clause is drafted at present, because, in fact, we have a degree of intention already shown. We have a declared intention on the part of the boards, and they are doing their very best to reduce the pollution wherever it exists. Surely, it is far better that the river boards, with their knowledge of their local streams and the circumstances of the area, and in consultation with the area officers of the National Coal Board, should deal with this matter in relation to the problems as they exist in each area, rather than that we in this House should make an immediate declaration of pollution and the requirements in regard to it.

We feel that the Clause is better as it is drafted, and, while I will bring the discussion to the attention of my right hon. Friend when he returns, or through the medium of HANSARD tomorrow, I feel that, in the light of the circumstances, it would be rather misleading the House if I led it to believe that it would be an easy matter, or a probable development, that in another place we might introduce another Amendment which would carry out the effect and intention of the Amendment submitted by the hon. Member for Hendon, South.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I had felt unwilling to withdraw my Amendment without some undertaking from the Government. It is important, and it makes a very large hole in the principle of the Bill. It would mean that anyone who opened a mine would be able to infringe the whole principle of the Bill.

My hon. Friend reminds me that the force of the Parliamentary Secretary's objection is considerably diminished when we remember that in Scotland they can do exactly what we are now pressing for. There, the authorities have not found it necessary to take the line which the Government appear to be taking here. I do not feel that the Government have considered this matter as carefully and as fully as they should, having regard to the principle involved, and there is an important principle involved here. If the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to say that further consideration will be given to the matter in the light of this discussion—I do not ask him to pledge himself—I should not wish to press the matter.

Mr. Lindgren

New mines would come under the provisions of the Water Act, and would require the Minister's permis- sion. In regard to the general principle, and particularly as regards what is impracticable here while being practicable in Scotland, I will look into that point, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend, and report back to the House.

Mr. Harold Davies

With the leave of the House, I should like to say a word or two in support of the contention of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). While I would not be prepared to divide the House, I do hope that the Minister will bear in mind that a very important principle is at stake here. On that point, I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Hendon, South, that the Bill might be undermined if the House does not draw attention to the possibilities.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his understanding of these considerations, will realise that there is no party difference here, but that both sides of the House are seeking the best possible means in mining districts of keeping the rivers clean and as free from pollution as possible.

Mr. Lindgren

That is so, and that is accepted.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

On the understanding that the Government will consider this matter further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the end, to insert "any underground part of."

The Amendment follows discussions in Committee, and it carries out an undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave during the Committee stage. I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who asked whether opencast workings or iron workings were exempt. Of course, they are included as normal industrial effluents, and this Amendment simply affects the others.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has found it possible to move this Amendment. Here again, I do not wish to be unreasonable; if there were any surface which had to be unwatered to prevent danger to life, as in the case of the Scottish disaster, I certainly should not make it a condition that the water would have to come from underground. If some surface flooding had taken place which was liable to burst through into the workings and endanger life, I should be only too willing to extend the utmost possible latitude to those responsible for dealing with it. If that were necessary in order to provide a safeguard, I am sure the House would agree. Meanwhile, in general, the water which is so shed into the stream is to be underground water.

I think this reinforces the case of the Parliamentary Secretary in bringing to the notice of his right hon. Gentleman the subject we were discussing earlier. Sometimes an accumulation of water in opencast workings is just as important from the point of view of getting coal as an accumulation of water in underground workings. Yet the Minister is willing to concede the point against it in the case of overground water. I trust he will find it possible to concede the point in the case of underground water.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "the mine," and to insert "underground." This is consequential upon a previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel Clarke

I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, at the end, to insert: (6) The National Coal Board and the proprietors of any mine or quarry shall from time to time make available to any river board which in their opinion is likely to be affected, copies of such plans and other information relating to proposed future workings, including in particular any plans for the sinking of any new shaft, as it may be reasonable or necessary for the river board to have; and any question as to what is reasonable or necessary for the purposes of this subsection shall be determined by the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that during the Committee stage, on 6th February, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) moved an Amendment to the original Bill, in page 2, line 35, to insert: The National Coal Board and the proprietors of any mine or quarry shall not sink any new shaft unless they have given the river board notice of their intention to do so not less than four weeks beforehand (or such less period as the river board may agree to). This is a matter of principle, because the opening of a new shaft may create a considerable number of changes in a water table which will affect the river boards. At the end of a short debate on that occasion, the Minister said: I am perfectly willing to adopt the suggestion made and let my advisers consult with the hon. Members who are interested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February, 1951; c. 43–46.] This Amendment is moved with a view to discovering what were the results of those consultations between the Minister, his advisers and hon. Members who are interested. I do not think one can exaggerate the importance of full notice being given to river boards of any change which may take place in the conditions of a river as a result of workings by the National Coal Board. Water travels in an extraordinary way underground, and often tapping in one place has effects quite a long way away. I had an instance of that the other day when I was in Holland. The draining of part of the Zuyder Zee had to be stopped because it was disturbing the foundations of Amsterdam. An effect of draining off the water was to produce subsidence of the buildings.

8.15 p.m.

I think that this is a reasonable Amendment. The House will see in line 4 the words that such plans and information should be supplied …as it may be reasonable or necessary for the river board to have; and any question as to what is reasonable or necessary…shall be determined by the Minister. He has the last word. I hope, therefore, that this—if I may so term it—exploratory Amendment may produce a favourable response.

Mr. Nugent

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should acknowledge that we did have a conference with the hon. Gentleman's advisers, and we were then informed that this was normal practice, and that such information would be passed. However, I think it is desirable that we should get that on the records of the House—that it is, in fact, the normal practice—so that we can have an official assurance that this will be done. The Report of the Committee on Mining Subsidence of March, 1949, called attention to the need to see that this really does happen. This is what it says: The National Coal Board should accept the obligation to supply to every Planning Authority and every Catchment Board"— that is now every river board— likely to be affected copies of plans showing in relation to surface features all relevant existing and proposed future workings with dates so far as these can be foreseen. These plans should be brought up to date at intervals of not less than six months. I think that that does give point to the need for this, and I think we should like an assurance that this really does happen. I think that there is a little bit of doubt sometimes as to whether it really does happen. It has not always happened as smoothly in the past as it should have, and as smoothly as it will do in the future as a result of the assurance that, I hope, the hon. Gentleman is going to give us.

Mr. Lindgren

I am only too happy to be able on this occasion to give the assurance which Members require. River boards, in common with anyone else, have the right to get copies of coal workings, and obtain—on payment of such fees, of course, as are prescribed—the proposals of the Coal Board in regard to its intentions. It is equally true that no new proposal may be made without the Ministry of Local Government and Planning knowing about it well before the decision to develop is taken. That is a function and duty; and I give the assurance that it will be done—that in so far as our Ministry is concerned they will themselves bring to the notice of the river boards any intentions to develop as come to their notice—as they all must do—in regard to developments in the areas of the various planning authorities.

Mr. Nugent

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make this quite clear? He did say that the river boards could have these plans on payment of fees. The point I want to get clear is this. Do we understand that there is an obligation on the Coal Board to see that the river boards and local authorities concerned do, in fact, receive these plans, or do they only get them if they ask for them and pay fees? Because if that is the case it is just not enough.

Mr. Lindgren

For the planning authorities, notice of the plans is already there. It is true that river boards have to ask for them and pay the fees for the plans. However, I will make certain about that and let the hon. Gentleman know. The river boards can be certain of obtaining the knowledge from the Ministry of Local Government and Planning. Every possible consultation is encouraged with the National Coal Board, the planning authorities and others concerned in the area. I can assure both hon. Members that the fullest consultation takes place, and that any diversion of water or interference with the flow of water is well known beforehand. On the basis of that assurance, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Harold Davies

I intervene as one who had the privilege of serving on the Committee on Mining Subsidence. This was a very important issue, and we spent a long time with riparian owners, agricultural interests, canal interests, and others, discussing the possibility of the National Coal Board embarking on development which might alter the course and flow of a stream and thereby result in pollution. As I understand it, there is now a statutory obligation upon the Coal Board to inform the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, but I should like there to be an obligation on the Ministry to pass on this information direct to the river boards.

One of our problems in dealing with mining subsidence was not to overload the National Coal Board with masses of paper obligations and the filling in of innumerable forms. If the Minister gave the House an assurance that the Ministry will take upon themselves the obligation to pass on that information to the river boards, I wonder whether that would satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, because that would not overload the Coal Board with paper work—which is now growing anyway—in connection with development plans.

Mr. Lindgren

I thought I had made that clear. It was the intention of my last intervention to show that there is an obligation to notify us, and it is then our obligation to notify river boards.

Colonel Clarke

I understand that the National Coal Board has a statutory obligation to give to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning any information relevant to sources and flow, and all other matters likely to affect river boards, and that the Ministry has, through the Minister, now made itself responsible for passing on that relevant information to the river boards. With that assurance, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out from "where" to "of," in line 8, and to insert: a person is convicted of any such offence, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was substantially a repetition or continuation. At various stages of the Order Paper there are Amendments related to this, and I imagine we shall take them as consequential when they arise. During Committee there was much discussion on whether or not a discharge which went on day after day was really one continuing event or a series of events. Following on the discussions in Committee, we had the benefit of detailed discussions with members of the legal section, and I am informed that, where there is pollution over a period, a series of events has been committed, because while matter is discharged each day, it may not necessarily be the same as that discharged on other days, although it may have been considered identical with it.

In order to meet the wishes expressed in Committee, we have tabled this Amendment, the effect of which is to leave it open to the court to deal with a repetition or continuation of the previous offence by the imposition of a daily penalty. This is really an Amendment to obtain clarity in regard to the point raised in Committee as to whether or not the continuing of an offence day after day in regard to an effluent was a continuing offence or a series of different offences.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 12, leave out "five hundred pounds," and insert: fifty pounds for every day on which the earlier offence has been so repeated or continued by him or five hundred pounds (whichever is the greater).

In line 14, leave out "one hundred pounds," and insert: ten pounds for every such day or one hundred pounds (whichever is the greater)."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, to leave out from "section," to the end of line 34, and to insert: which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director manager secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Mr. Philips Price

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will it be in order to discuss the other Amendments dealing with this subject? I have two Amendments on the Order Paper; can these Amendments be discussed together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think that would be for the convenience of the House. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) has down two Amendments which are linked with this one—those in lines 18 and 20.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

This Amendment deals with the provisions in the Bill which caused a certain amount of discussion in Committee because they contain rather startling words. Subsection (7) states: Where an offence punishable under this section has been committed by body corporate, any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate…shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent.… Those may be called fairly strong measures. The Minister on that occasion said: I am further informed that this subsection is really common form in recent Acts. In some dozen of Acts passed into law in the last few years, a provision of this sort has found a place, so that this is no innovation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 13th February, 1951; c. 83.] 8.30 p.m.

But we have now a more recent ruling of the Government on this matter and I trust it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to harmonise this Measure with the most recent ruling on the subject. In the case of the Bill dealing with sea fish, a somewhat similar provision was in the Measure, but it was moved out by no less a person than the Lord Chancellor in another place. That was on 26th April and this House was asked to agree with the Amendment on the motion of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. I could scarcely appeal to higher authorities or to those who carry more weight with the Government. The words which I suggest should be inserted here are exactly those words which were inserted in another place, and recommended to the House by one of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. Dalton

I must apologise to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I have only just returned to the House and therefore I am not completely au fait at this moment with the course of the debate. I was advised when we discussed this in Committee upstairs that this was a common form procedure, and without notice I am not able to reconcile it with or place it alongside his reference to the Lord Chancellor in another place. In view of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about the Lord Chancellor having cited this on the White Fish Bill, would he allow me to look into it, as I do not think it fair either to him or the House to give a snap answer? We could then, if necessary, adjust it in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I should be most willing to do that. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is giving an undertaking that he will try to harmonise this and will, if possible, introduce an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Dalton

I would not put it quite as high as that. I would undertake to inquire into the other formula and see whether that other formula is preferable. I will see whether there is any reason why we should differentiate between the one Bill and the other. It may be that there is a reason which I do not know; and it may be there is no reason.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

I am sure we do not wish the Minister to give a snap answer. He is speaking with the whole responsibility of the Government and we must make allowances for that; but he will understand that I am withdrawing on a gentleman's agreement that he will do his best to see why the provision was drawn as it was drawn and whether it is possible to put the sea fish on all fours—if one may use such an expression about fish—with the river fish. In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out from "circumstances," to the end of line 28.

The omission of the words referred to is to make way for a later Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren

I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert: (8) Where a person is convicted of an offence by virtue of the last foregoing subsection as having at the time of its commission been a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of a body corporate within the meaning of that subsection (or been purporting to act in any such capacity), and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was substantially a repetition or continuation of an earlier offence by the body corporate after it had been convicted of the earlier offence (whether under this Act or otherwise), he shall be liable to the same penalties as the body corporate under the proviso to subsection (6) of this section, including the imprisonment to which it would be liable if a natural person: Provided that—

1. (a) he shall not be so liable if he shows that at the time of the first-mentioned offence he did not know of the body corporate's conviction for the earlier offence and that at the time of the earlier offence he was not acting or purporting to act in any such capacity; and
2. (b) in determining the maximum amount of any fine to which he is so liable any repetition or continuation of the earlier offence by the body corporate shall be disregarded if he shows either—
   1. (i) that at the time when the repetition or continuation occurred he was not acting or purporting to act in any such capacity; or
   2. (ii) that the repetition or continuation occurred without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent its occurrence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in any such capacity in which he was acting or purporting to act and to all the circumstances.

This Amendment is consequential. It has been drafted to give effect to a promise made by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent) in Committee.

Mr. Nugent

I much appreciate the attempt made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman to meet the point which I made in Committee. This Amendment does so in the terms of the Bill as originally drafted. If the Amendment is accepted, there will be consequential Amendments. Subject to that, I thank the Ministers very much.

Amendment agreed to.