HC Deb 16 March 1972 vol 833 cc912-21
Mr. Dalyell

I beg to move, Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 33, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Peter Walker

It might be convenient, Sir Robert, to discuss with Amendment No. 17, if the Opposition were agreeable, Amendment No. 19, in page 6, line 10, at end insert 'and such records shall be available for public inspection'.

Basically the principle is the same.

The Chairman

Yes, if that is agreeable to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell

This is one on which we feel fairly strongly. I hope that it will not become the habit tonight of entering into tedious repetition of Monday's debate. We understand that the Bill is a temporary Measure to deal with urgent problems. Nevertheless, the issue of secrecy is a serious one. Indeed, we might ask whether, under the present view of secrecy, the Bill will achieve as much as is hoped by this side of the Committee or the Secretary of State.

The publication of consent conditions or of the results of samples of trade effluent does not appear to be specifically forbidden by the Public Health Acts. However, the details are normally kept secret. The justification for that is contained in Section 287 of the 1936 Act. That threatens three months' imprisonment if a local official discloses to any person any information obtained by him in the factory, workshop or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret.

10.45 p.m.

I make no apology for quoting Mr. Kenneth Tyler, of the Association of Public Health Inspectors. He says: The inspector would be a very unwise man if he started releasing details of individual discharges to sewers or other effluents. It is the C.B.I, view that it would be possible for a competitor to gain useful information from an effluent. It is just conceivable that an alaysis of a works effluent could give a competitor a clue to a vital catalyst in a new process. But most chemists regard as ludicrous the notion of industrial secrets leaking down some plug-hole.

Moreover, the competitor really interested in the rival's waste is more likely to row stealthily up river on a dark night than to rely on the meagre information in a local authority's books. Why do we make such an issue about this? Though many of the inspectors are of the highest quality, it is only human nature that, too often, cosy relationships develop over a time. That is quite understandable and it is human. But in the light of recent examples, and I quote Avonmouth as only one of them, we cannot be entirely at ease on the subject.

River authorities could install recording equipment of their own, but they would have to pay for it and there is no way in which the costs could be recovered from the polluter. Since river authorities are scandalously short of scientific equipment they are unlikely to lose the opportunity of getting industry to pay instead. There is also the great problem of those local authorities which are represented on river boards who do not want to offend industry, especially if they have unemployment problems.

This raises the whole question of the Alkali Inspectorate. The Chief Alkali Inspector says: I am a great believer in informing the public but not alarming them. Shop stewards and officials know that the alkali inspector has been in the plant but perhaps they never see him and often mysterious are the ways of the alkali inspector. I refer to the report issued by our late colleague Arthur Sheffington shortly before he died, asking for greater public participation in these matters. I also quote Graham Searle, of The Friends of the Earth, who says: Everyone says the alkali inspectors are very good but how can we tell if they are good if they do not publish any figures? Flexibility and co-operation are the watchwords of the Alkali Inspectorate, but do flexible officials sometimes put public health and safety at risk rather than jeopardise relationships with the polluters? We are unable to judge because the facts are withheld from us. Pollution officers have the power to take samples of industrial discharges to make sure they are complying with the limits, but any analysis remains strictly confidential. The regulating agency may require the factory to monitor air or water quality down-wind or down-stream from the discharge, but the measurements are hidden away in Government files. We must be told why they are hidden away.

It may be true, as the Government say, that matters of principle are involved and that we must wait until the major legislation comes. But we are dealing with the legislation now before us and it is doubtful whether in a situation of secrecy even this immediate legislation can be effective. I have given the Secretary of State notice that if he doubts the relevance of what I am saying he should look at the departmental files on the case of the London Brick Company and Little Brickhill in 1965 and the report of the alkali inspector's dealings with the company which came before his predecessor at that time. Out of this case, a very interesting case, it appeared that a relationship of coziness and friendliness had built up over the years. Such cases would never have happened if members of the public had been able to have the access for which we are asking in the Amendment.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), because I put my name to Amendment No. 19, and I would have put it to this Amendment if I had known what it was all about. I can now see its significance.

I have spent the greater part of my parliamentary life putting down Questions urging that files should not be opened. It is only because I have listened to the very eloquent persuasion of my hon. Friend that I am tonight adopting a totally new rôle, urging that files should be opened to the public. I do this with all the sincerity I can muster, because this is a particular case where the public should know. If I felt there were any personal, intimate or confidential details in the files, I should not support the Amendment. If I felt that the information was given on a basis of confidentiality or intimacy, I might have severe reservations. But I represent a constituency where a great deal of the cause for the Bill started. It was in my constituency that 36 drums of poisonous waste were dumped. My constituents were caused a great deal of alarm and concern because they were not sure what was inside them.

We find ourselves increasingly concentrating on this problem in our constituencies. Conservation groups and others wonder what is going on in a factory, and what is its discharge. The only way in which we can allay public suspicions, which are growing after the wide publicity recent incidents have received, is to allow people to see the files.

There is a dilemma here, and I am sorry my hon. Friend has not gone all the way towards removing it. Perhaps there should be a part of the file that is accessible to the public and another part that is not. Perhaps commercial parts of the file should be concealed from public inspection. That is precisely the solution I have adopted in my Control of Personal Information Bill, though I wonder when it will have its Second Reading.

I am pleased to support the spirit of the two Amendments. The publicity given to the recent incidents warrants public inspection. It may be that total public inspection would betray some of the confidentiality upon the basis of which information was gathered. But I believe this is the one, particular case where disclosure rather than non-disclosure should be the rule.

Mr. Peter Walker

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I must tell the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) that there is no greater joy in heaven than over one sinner who repenteth. It is interesting to see this remarkable conversion.

It is agreed on both sides of the Committee that there are difficulties in the matter. There are two distinct aspects. The provision under the Public Health Acts, which I think is reasonable, is that if authority uses the power to go on to people's premises to see whether a crime has been committed or to look into a particular problem, information obtained as a result of that visit should not be given to the general public other than any action taken as a result of the visit. I should have thought that a pretty fair and reasonable basis and a reasonable attitude to take. When powers are taken for local authorities or the police to search premises, any secret they discover in the course of that search should not be conveyed to the world at large.

In terms of giving much more information about the passage of pollution in all its forms, I am very much in sympathy with the hon. Member. The case for industrial secrecy may well exist in a number of cases and perhaps appropriate provision could be made for that, but to say that because it could exist in some cases it should apply in all is not a good principle. Recently I said that on the basis of the observations on secrecy made by the Jeger Committee, the Government were consulting with the C.B.I. and others on the future of this problem. I hope that as a result of this discussion we can provide for the public a great deal more information than now.

Certain problems are involved. For example, we have to make sure that we do not provide information in such a way that people act irresponsibly and bring injunctions against firms which result in the stopping of production by those firms for some weeks until it is established whether or not irresponsible action has been taken. If a competitor of a firm in the Hon. Member's constituency brought an. injunction that was not well founded against another firm and stopped its production for six weeks, that would not be appropriate. Therefore, when we expand, as we will, the amount of information, we must tie up all the legal aspects and see that this is done in a responsible way. I assure the hon. Member that we shall press ahead with consultations and discussions. We shall have opportunities in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and major legislation dealing with water supplies to obtain more information.

With reference to the Alkali Inspectorate, I do not want to comment on the specific case the hon. Member quoted, but I say this about the Inspectorate. We have made more progress on clean air as a result of the work of the inspectorate than any other industrial nation. I do not say that because of that one must not constantly try to improve the situation. On the basis on which we operate in this country with a skilled inspectorate for whose integrity I have great regard, where it is the duty of the industrialist to use the best available method of diminishing pollution and insisting that he brings in within a reasonable period of time those methods, this has worked far more successfully than the method which a number of other nations have used which results in a land fit for lawyers to live in but where not a great deal of progress is made.

Although the hon. Member may declare his interest in disagreeing with this view, having witnessed the working of systems in other nations, I know that they have created a field day for lawyers, but nowhere near such great progress has been made on clear air as in this country.

11.0 p.m.

When for example one looks at the clean air success story, not just in a place like London, but in industrial centres such as Sheffield, it is a great tribute to the method we have adopted. I would be loth to change that basic method. I have already strengthened the Alkali Inspectorate; I have put a whole host of industrial processes under its control which were not previously under its control. Basically it works under a good principle. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we have a bad group of inspectors, I know that he appreciates their devotion to their task.

The tragedy is that not enough people have taken an interest in their work. They publish a lot of facts and figures in their annual report, giving details of achievements and the sad thing is that so few copies of the annual reports are sold. One of the reasons why I have changed the name of the Inspectorate to the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate is that I thought one or two members of the public would take more interest in clean air than in alkali. Only time will tell whether that is true. I understand the doubts expressed by the hon. Gentleman about secrecy. We will take this into account in our consultations and in the major legislation will, I hope, be able to meet the basic principles he has outlined.

Mr. Dalyell

The right hon. Gentleman can take it that the Opposition will be watching precisely what he does in the coming months and how he carries out the promises in the legislation which will be coming before us. Speaking personally I accept his rebuke that some of us who have been interested in this have not paid sufficient attention to the work of the Alkali Inspectorate over the past two or three years, or long before that. There is a case for having discussions inside the Department with the Alkali Inspectorate as to its future rôle because he may find it has views of its own.

Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 6, line 10, at end add: (5) Local authorities shall, in the case of waste to which section 2 of this Act applies, draw up a register, to be available for public inspection, of all factories and premises carrying on processes and storage involving such waste. I can only conclude, by the number of Amendments of mine which have been selected, that this is not a "nuts and bolts" Bill. I have tabled Amendments in a probing spirit and that is true of this one. One of the powers which ought to have been given in the Bill is the power of a local authority to draw up a register of processes going on and consequently to be in at the beginning of these processes. There would also be the power to exercise a constant surveillance and monitoring of these processes.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I applaud the general sentiments of the Bill as a temporary measure, but I cannot help feeling that local authorities will be brought in too late. I would have liked them to be in at the start and therefore there ought to be the power to draw up a register. The right hon. Gentleman will say that he cannot really give that kind of power to local authorities when they may only be there for a year or two and that he would prefer that such powers be given, if at all, to larger and standard bodies. With respect, I do not think this affects the main question, because I still think, even though local authorities may currently be of diverse sizes and natures, that they should be empowered to draw up at least a rudimentary register of where these processes are going on. As I am sure the Secretary of State knows, local authorities already have to maintain several registers.

As I said on Monday evening—and I do not wish to repeat myself too much—if a company stores ice cream it has to tell the local authority; if it stores sausages it has to tell the local authority; and if a company handles certain types of poisons it has to tell the local authority.

I should have thought, therefore, that it would not have affected the basic routine duties of local authorities in the least, even on the present scale and size, if, in addition to sausages, ice cream and poisons, they had to maintain a register of production processes which involve the production of poisonous waste. It also would give the local authority public health inspectors another opportunity to build up a continuous and on-going relationship with companies which may emit poisonous wastes.

Local authorities should start now, although in a rudimentary fashion, to draw up a register of manufacturing plants using these substances within their boundaries. By doing this, I should like to think that public health inspectors could be in a position to anticipate poisonous products from a factory, and to consult the Department which offers full advice and services. If a public health inspector knew that a process was going on in his local authority area, he would have more time to consult the Department and to make himself better informed and to inform the people who ought to be involved.

I move this Amendment in a probing spirit. I can, unfortunately, anticipate what the Minister's answer will be, but it is at least a question on which we should hear the Secretary of State's sentiments.

Mr. John Silkin

I support the general principle behind my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is not for me to say so, but I should not have thought the Amendment quite achieved what my hon. Friend wishes to achieve. The whole basis of a register of information, as time goes by, telling us where dangerous waste comes from and where it is produced and stored, will be of inestimable value.

I am sure the Secretary of State has this in mind and he might give us his views on it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

My right hon. Friend has this in mind. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that he is seeking to extend the Bill somewhat in that the Bill deals with waste and he is talking, essentially, of a register of manufacturers. I do not think, even with this scintillating Committee tonight, that our colleagues on either side would thank us if we were to take so large a step as that.

However, my right hon. Friend has it in mind, with a system of specific authorisations for disposal of waste. It will take us some while to get through, but the hon. Gentleman, in fairness to him, made the point that, at a time when many smaller local authorities have only a matter of a year or so to go, it would be rather difficult at this stage to place on them the task of compiling a register of industrial processes which are going on within their area. We are sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's general point, and I hope that he will accept what I have said and not press the Amendment.

Mr. Huckfield

As I said, I moved the Amendment in a probing spirit, and I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State has also been probing. In that spirit I seek to probe no further and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Silkin

The point to which I wish to direct the Secretary of State's mind is short but important. The Bill, rightly, does not propose to make river authorities enforcement authorities. There are many difficulties in the way of that. On the other hand, one wants to be able to see that the river authorities have their voice. Will the Secretary of State say that he expects local authorities to act at the request of river authorities should they draw the attention of local authorities to a breach of the Bill, and where enforcement checks generally are required? If he will say that, will he go further and give official instructions to local authorities on this point? If he will do that it will meet the case.

Mr. Peter Walker

I will do that. I intend to send a circular to both river authorities and local authorities, and I will include in it the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell

What is the rough time-scale of the Secretary of State's discussions with industry?

Mr. Peter Walker

It is always difficult to put a time-scale upon talks of that kind. Talks are taking place, and talks will also have to take place with local authority associations. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which will be necessary before the new authorities take over in 1974 is likely to be introduced in the next Session, and also the new water Measure. Already the White Paper has been published and consultations are taking place.

Mr. Dalyell

Does the Secretary of State see great difficulty on the issue of secrecy? Does he think we are making it more secret than it is?

Mr. Walker

I accept the basic premise of the hon. Gentleman that there is no element of secrecy attaching to the great proportion of effluent from industry which is pouring into the rivers and sewers. I do not know what degree of secrecy there is, but I want to isolate it and make appropriate provision for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to