DECISION ON APPLICATION. (Hansard, 10 April 1968)

§ Mr. Buchan
I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 16, line 17, leave out from 'the' to 'cooling' and insert: 'elimination from or the diminution in any trade effluent of'. This Amendment implements an undertaking in Committee to reconsider the wording of paragraph (f) of Clause 29(3). As drafted the paragraph would seem to leave the local authority with no discretion save to exclude all cooling water from trade effluent. The intention is that the local authority should be enabled to control the discharge of cooling water in trade effluent accepting as much of it as it thinks reasonable. The Amendment makes the necessary drafting alteration.

§ Mr. Buchan
I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 16, line 18, at end insert: (g) the prevention of any injury to the health of persons engeged in carrying out the functions of the authority under this Act as a result of the discharge of any trade effluent into the sewers; The effect of the Amendment is to include, in the list of conditions that a local authority can attach to the discharge of a trade effluent, a specific reference to conditions to protect the health of workers in the local authority's sewerage undertaking. The Amendment meets an undertaking given in Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) moved an Amendment with the same purpose.

§ Mr. Wylie
I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 17, line 4, after 'revenue', insert 'or saving'.
This is a small Amendment, which, through an oversight on my part, I did not put down on Committee stage. It is to introduce another criterion which should fall to be considered in the variety of circumstances spelled out in the paragraph in which it appears. It is an Amendment which ought to commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Buchan
There is always a temptation to hope that the Amendment will commend itself to hon. Members opposite. I cannot accept it. In the first place, it is unnecessary. I hoped to get some clarification but, as I thought, it means what it says. There is nothing further to it, and it is not necessary.
If one looks at page 16 from line 40 onward, one sees: … regard being had to the nature and composition and to the volume and rate of discharge of the trade effluent so discharged, to any additional expense incurred or likely to be incurred by the authority in connection with the reception, treatment or disposal of the trade effluent … It is, of course, a net expense, and to that extent anything that is a saving in it will be taken into consideration. Revenue can only refer to revenue from the sale of effluent by the authority under Clause 40. This revenue would be offset against the cost to the local authority of dealing with the effluent, and the local authority would have to take this into account in fixing charges. This kind of saving is therefore already covered.
I cannot think of any other kind of saving except the balancing of accounts. It is quite clear from the context that it is the physical possession of the effluent that is in question, and this would normally lead to greater expense, and not to a saving. The main thing is that it is already covered, and I hope the hon. Member will accept that.

§ Mr. Wylie
If the words "net additional expense" had appeared, it would have been perfectly clear. It was not clear to those advising me and it was not clear to me. In the light of the Minister's explanation that savings are taken into account in this way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.