§ 11. Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satis- 1510 fied with the operation of the Rivers (prevention of Pollution) Act 1961, in view of the continued oil pollution of the River Don in Sheffield and south Yorkshite.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsNo, Sir, and my right hon. and learned Friend has already told the House that he hopes to introduce legislation during the lifetime of this Parliament greatly to strengthen the existing system of controls.
§ Mr. DuffyThat reply will be received with considerable gratification in Sheffield, where, given the quality of the local Press, it has long been felt that the most pertinent weapon in the face of the polluters was publicity. It was thought that there was something wrong with an Act that prevented officials from giving the names of culprits and the state and content of effluent.
§ Mr. GriffithsThe hon. Member will be glad to know that among the other proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend has in mind is the ending of unnecessary confidentiality about discharges to the natural environment.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsOn the principle that the polluter should pay for the pollution that he causes in the rivers—not only the Don but the Trent, which is very bad at the moment—will my hon. Friend consider with his right hon. and learned Friend increasing the cost to the polluter for the damage that he is doing to these great rivers?
§ Mr. GriffithsYes, Sir, but I should like to put this into perspective by pointing out that every week since 1970 about four miles of polluted river have been cleared up.