HC Deb 04 February 1965 vol 705 cc1355-61
Mr. Hendry

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 14, line 12, at the end to insert: (5) Section 3(2) of the principal Act shall be amended by the insertion of the words "ports and harbours" after the word "fisheries" in line 5 of paragraph (b) thereof. Section 3 of the principal Act, the 1951 Act, lays down the composition of river boards, and provides that the Secretary of State, in nominating the members of boards, will appoint representatives of certain interests in the river. It states: … the remainder of the members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State … to represent the interests of persons concerned with the carrying on of agriculture, fisheries or industry in the river purification board area or any other interests. … and so on.

There is a major variation in this Bill from the previous legislation, in that tidal waters are for the first time generally included in the provisions of the river purification legislation. In some cases, these tidal waters include ports and harbours, and it seems reasonable, right and proper that the authorities administering the ports and harbours should have their interests directly represented in the river purification authorities. The port principally affected by this Amendment is that of Aberdeen, which is actually situated on the tidal stretch of a river. The port authorities there have very material interests in this legislation, and I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that they are worthy of representation on these boards, and that these words should be inserted.

7.15 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I would counsel hon. Members not to accept this Amendment, and I will, without disrespect at all to the hon. Member, explain why I do so. If we were to add these words we would be invited, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, to name special sectional interests of a quite valid kind—the papermaking industry's interests, such as sectional interests of the agricultural industry and other examples will come to mind. There are a number of specific interests that, in specific areas and in regard to specific rivers, might wish to be represented, on the boards if this Amendment was accepted.

We think that in regard to Aberdeen the phrase in Section 3(2) of the 1951 Act is wide enough to let us meet in practice the point advanced in this Amendment. After all, port and harbour interests can be considered as industrial interests. For that matter, the Aberdeen harbour interests, with their extensive fishing interests, could be considered as coming within the definition of fisheries. We think that the phrase is already general enough to specify even ports and harbours; and that to insert the words proposed would invite other unfortunate specific sectional interests which we would think not desirable. While I accept the hon. Member's case in regard to Aberdeen, and the choice of the Secretary of State in regard to that particular area, I would ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Hendry

Having brought the matter to the attention of the Under-Secretary, and in view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hendry

I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 14, line 13, to leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Mr. Speaker

I venture to suggest that with this Amendment it is convenient to discuss that in page 17, line 11, leave out "Schedule 3".

Mr. Hendry

This Amendment is very much more far-reaching, although it does not appear so at first glance because I propose to leave out these two subsections, the first of which reads: (5) The provisions of the principal Act mentioned in Schedule 3 to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments specified therein, being minor amendments and amendments consequential on the foregoing provisions of this Act. I find that extremely interesting. Far be it for me to suggest that the Joint Under-Secretary would deliberately mislead the House, but it is most unfortunate that he should describe these as minor Amendments. The only charitable reason I can think of for his having inserted these words is that his Government, with their well-known enthusiasm, have gone on and preparing a Bill to clean up our rivers and all the rest without giving the faintest thoughts to the possible consequences of what they are doing.

Let us look at what the so-called minor Amendments are. They have practically all one purpose, and that is to eliminate from existing legislation the word "reasonable". In the principal Act of 1951 certain offences are created; persons who do certain things such as putting undesirable things into rivers are guilty of offences, and such offences carry extremely heavy penalties. Under the Bill, the penalties, rightly and properly, have been increased.

In every case, however, there comes the question of whether it is reasonably practicable to forbid them to do these things. After all, there must be a criterion as to when a certain course of action is undesirable and offensive and when it becomes really harmless and a matter of reasonableness in any particular case. Previous legislation both in Scotland and in England has given effect to this line of argument.

The principal Act applying to Scotland in several cases listed in Schedules 3 and 4 uses such words as, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. We find that in every case where the word "reasonable" occurs in the 1951 Act it has been deliberately eliminated. Instead of acting reasonably, the boards are given power to act as they think fit, It is possible that in the first blush of enthusiasm under the powers given to them without thought by this Government the boards might act unreasonably.

I know of a landowner in my constituency, who was concerned only with his selfish interests, the interests of his salmon fishings, and who actually threatened a large industry, sited on a river, that if it did not go a great deal further in purifying its effluent he would take steps to have the works closed. That was a very serious thing, but it is something which might flow from the Bill. This landowner, a member of a river authority, was using threats to an industry which provided a livelihood for no fewer than 6,000 people.

Consider what is involved. The industry to which I have referred is paper-making and the owners of the mill were considering the installations of a purification plant at a cost of about £70,000. That would produce an effluent which to all intents and purposes would be completely innocuous and would not harm or discolour the river. Yet this member of the river board is insisting quite unreasonably that the mill should produce a much higher standard of effluent. To produce the standard of effluent for which he asked would cost at least £140,000. That amount for a private citizen in Scotland is a very serious matter. It is completely misleading for the Minister to refer to this as a minor Amendment, because anything which caused such expenditure would not be minor.

Since I raised this question in Committee I have heard from another constituent who is faced with an expenditure of no less than £247,000 if the river board acts in an unreasonable way. That is even more serious than the other case I have mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), who, unfortunately, could not be present today, and has asked me to apologise for her absence, told me that in her constituency a firm employing about 400 people might be put to very considerable expense if the river board were given the powers contemplated by the Bill. It expects that it would have to expend no less than £65,000 although at the moment it is committing no nuisance and there is no serious emission of effluent.

This is a very serious case because the undertaking is a subsidiary of an English firm and I understand that the English principals have capacity in the Manchester area which could absorb this plant if it were faced with this sort of expenditure, and would have no hesitation in doing so. This brings me to the most important consequence of the proposed legislation. The English legislation includes the words which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and makes reasonableness the criterion throughout. The English Act was passed as recently as 1961. The Conservative Government did everything they possibly could to attract industries to Scotland. I cannot believe that the present Government are trying to chase industries away from Scotland, but that is precisely what they will do if this legislation goes through in its present form.

If an industrialist is contemplating setting up an industry in Scotland instead of in England, he will consider in which country he can get the most favourable terms. He knows that in England he will be treated in a reasonable manner under the 1961 Act, but an industrialist looking at this Bill would inevitably think that he would be treated in an unreasonable way in Scotland because the present Government, in presenting the Bill, are going to great trouble to cut out any reference to reasonableness. These are most serious matters. I ask the Under Secretary to think carefully about them. It may be that my Amendments are not correctly worded, but he will have opportunities to put that right.

Schedule 4, which is affected by these Amendments, provides for the repeal of Section 25 of the 1951 Act. That section provides, among other things, for the making of byelaws laying down standards for effluents. I understand that no such byelaw has been made at any time, but there is provision there for river boards to lay down standards, not only for rivers but for parts of rivers. There will be no criterion except what a river board in an arbitrary way may think fit.

Mr. Manue

They are reasonable people.

Mr. Hendry

It may be that they are reasonable people. If so, why not retain the criterion of reasonableness? That is being taken away and the boards are being given dictatorial powers to apply the law in such a way as they may think fit.

Dr. Dickson Mahon

I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who has been helpful over so many parts of the Bill, should now make things difficult by what I can only describe as an intemperate speech.

The hon. Member referred to the improper conduct of a certain member of a board who, I assume, was appointed by his right hon. Friend when he was Secretary of State, or by his predecessor. If that man behaved improperly, as the hon. Member has suggested, the right course of action would be for him to be reported to the Secretary of State. It is quite wrong for a member of a board so to abuse his position as to exploit someone in this unseemly and wrong way. I suggest that if such circumstances were to occur again in any part of Scotland the hon. Member should realise that there is a course of action open, because what he described was an improper use of a public appointment.

In relation to the generality of the argument, we have tried very hard, during our proceedings on the Bill, to show why this difference in wording provides a strengthening of the position for discharges. I experienced some misunderstanding largely caused by Press reports of our proceedings. I do not blame the Press so much, because this is a complex Bill and, by their nature, newspaper reports have to be abbreviated. Nevertheless, I had the experience that the Scottish section of the Federation of British Industries made this kind of response. I tried hard to explain to the delegation, and it accepted my explanation very fully, that the change will not work to the detriment of dischargers, but is in their favour.

By requiring statements of reasons in writing by the boards for refusal of consent, and an appeal to the Secretary of State having the right of hearing by an independent person if requested by the appellant, we have strengthened the position of dischargers. We have done it deliberately. We realised that the Bill would be successful only if the boards did their work properly and at the same time took into account the necessary conditions and circumstances of dischargers. One can ask a man to do only what he is capable of doing, and if he is incapable of doing something for economic reasons and so on, it is wrong for the boards to press ahead unreasonably. That is why there is a provision in the Bill that the conditions to be imposed by boards may be imposed "as they think fit." That has a broader interpretation to a lawyer than the words in the original Act.

I hope that I have managed to content the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent. I congratulate him upon making on this Amendment the speech that he probably intended to make on the first Amendment. I cannot believe that he wants to proceed with his two Amendments. He criticises the word "minor". I trust that he and I are modest men, but, even in our modesty, perhaps we would not say that the Amendments that we have achieved in the Committee and today are minor. However, I understand that the word "minor" appears here in its legal sense, in relation to the main principles of the original Act, to which we have added qualifications. It is true that in our view the qualifications may be so substantial as to be regarded by us not as minor Amendments but as new principles, but that is a matter of argument and evaluation. However, I should be content, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will, to leave the word "minor" instead of talking about "major" Amendments, which would distort matters.

It would be a pity if by this phrase we disdained what we have achieved for fisheries, because if the Amendment succeeds, the excellent work that we have done in filling the lacuna will be gone. In his splendidly persuasive way, the hon. Gentleman has managed to convert the position about quarries into helping us to clear up the river banks. That was a joint Government-Opposition venture. That would be wrecked, too. The revision achieved by the whole Committee would also be wrecked. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wishes to persist in wrecking many of the improvements that we have made to the Bill. I believe that he has tabled his Amendments largely to ventilate the matter of the difference between the Bill and the original Act. I hope I have explained the situation, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, because what he has proposed would wreck the Bill.

Mr. Hendry

I said that my Amendments were imperfect. Because of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.