§ Where regulations are made in pursuance of Section 27(5) or a notice is served under Section 47(3) compensation shall be payable to the owner or occupier of any land over which good agricultural or horticultural practices are restricted to the extent of any loss consequential upon the making of the regulation of the serving of the notice.—[Mr. Ralph Howell.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Ralph Howell (Norfolk, North)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There is widespread concern in the agriculture industry about the wide powers embodied in the Bill for the restriction of the application of organic and inorganic fertilisers. Such restriction would create tremendous hardship for farmers and owner-occupiers since there is no provision for compensation. The Bill nullifies the provisions of Section 18 of the Water Act 1945 which provide for 943 compensation to be paid when the use of fertilisers is restricted near boreholes and aquifers.
Farmers will suffer a severe loss if they are not allowed to use normal agricultural practice in the application of fertilisers. There would be serious loss to the occupier and to the owner if restrictions were imposed, because the value of the land would be considerably reduced.
The payment of compensation would deter farmers from using fertilisers too enthusiastically for the purpose of increasing the food supply. A proper balance should be struck between the ever-increasing importance of food production and concern about the pollution of rivers.
The main worry is about nitrates which enter watercourses. Only 10 blue babies have been born in this country since 1950. In one or two areas of Norfolk and Suffolk watercourses have been polluted by nitrates, but only to a very small extent. The problem can be overcome by providing pure water for young babies to drink.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the clause.
§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI cannot advise the House to write such an unlimited financial undertaking into the Bill. Although one may have sympathy with farmers in their many problems, the Control of Pollution Bill is not the vehicle by which those problems can be tackled.
It is a little hard when we are being told to control public expenditure for hon. Members one after another to advocate courses that will cost the Exchequer a great deal of money. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman expects this compensation to be paid by the Exchequer. That is not clear from the new clause.
The clause gives the right of compensation to an owner or occupier of agricultural or horticultural land who suffers financial loss as the result of the making of a regulation under Clause 27(5) or the issuing of a notice under Clause 47 asking the farmer or the person concerned to combine good agricultural practice with the requirement to prevent pollution.
§ Mr. Ralph HowellI am not asking for that. All I am asking is that compensation should be paid to a farmer who is restricted from using organic or inorganic fertilisers to the extent which is classified as good agricultural practice. If he is prevented from using those fertilisers, his land will become virtually sterile and he will suffer tremendous loss.
§ Mr. Denis HowellIf the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I shall take the matter a little further. The essence of what the hon. Gentleman is asking is this. Under the Bill an authority may ask a farmer or horitcultural user not to persist in using certain fertilisers because they are causing pollution. The hon. Gentleman suggests that when that happens the farmer should be compensated. In other words, he is asking that people should be compensated for not polluting the countryside. That cannot be right. We cannot give compensation to people who cease to pollute the countryside, and that is the objection to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. No one should be compensated for refraining from causing pollution.
The clause is in conflict with the principle laid down some time ago by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), and generally accepted, that the polluter must pay for pollution which he causes.
The Bill contains machinery designed to ensure that restrictions are not imposed unless there is adequate proof that they are necessary to prevent pollution. There is no suggestion that water authorities or local authorities will rush in and do something to harm agricultural interests or farmers generally. They will have regard to practice in other parts of the country. If it is necessary to take action because of severe pollution hazards, they have a duty to do so, but it is wrong that the community should be expected to pay compensation to the farming community for observing the notices.
§ Mr. Ralph HowellAlthough I have the most serious misgivings about the Ministers reply, I am grateful for the assurance that the Bill will be used with the utmost care and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.