§ The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin)I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 37, line 22, at end insert any prescribed enactment, or'.
This is a technical amendment to enable the Secretary of State to remove conflicts since some of the previous enactments enable substances to be put into water. Unless the Secretary of State has power by regulation to exempt these matters, there will be a conflict between the various provisions.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 38, leave out lines 9 to 11.
I declare an interest as a member of the council of the Salmon and Trout Association, and I am also fortunate enough to be able from time to time to fish in Wales. My interest in this matter stems from a letter from the Welsh National Water Development Authority, a copy of which was sent to me. The authority is concerned about the effect of the reference to abandoned mines in Clause 27 of the Bill as it stands. It points out that
in Wales there are many abandoned mines, both coal and metalliferous, from which contaminated water flows so as to cause pollution problems in local watercourses. The 965 Committee at their meeting on Friday had before them a report on a recent and continuing pollution of the Afon Lwyd almost certainly caused by the cessation of pumping by the National Coal Board at Blaenavon Pit in September last year. Although the National Coal Board have agreed to resume pumping while the problem is being investigated this incident demonstrates the way in which large scale improvements in river quality achieved over many years with the co-operation of public and private bodies can be nullified by the drainage from an abandoned mine.This is a potentially serious problem. People do an enormous amount of work to clean and improve rivers, and it would be a tragedy if waters were made useless as amenities and became unfishable because of provisions absolving anyone from responsibility in relation to abandoned mines.I understand that the Minister is advised not to accept the amendment. He may rely on the ground that there is no money available. That is a standard ground on which all Ministers rely before they think of other better grounds, although often there are no other better grounds. It would be a pity if that were regarded as the best line of defence against the amendment.
In Clause 45 of the Bill there is an interesting and useful provision to enable water authorities to undertake studies into water pollution problems arising from the closure of mines. But nowhere in the Bill can I find anything which empowers local authorities to do anything about conclusions they may reach as a result of their studies. However, it is evidently envisaged that this is a problem which local authorities may want to examine.
The Minister may also be advised that Clause 41 probably gives the Secretary of State or somebody else power of a kind in relation to mines where there is a question as to whether they have been abandoned or not. No doubt lawyers will have a field day arguing whether a mine has been abandoned while the water seeps out merrily, killing fish for miles around.
There is no real defence in either of the arguments which I think the Minister may have in mind. Nor is there a guarantee that we shall not see waters being killed in the way that the Welsh National Water Development Authority and many fishermen and other people fear.
966 Why are the words which my amendment seeks to leave out included in the Bill at this time? I do not believe that they were in the original draft of the legislation. No particular reason for having them has been advanced to the House, although it might have been argued in another place.
3.45 p.m.
I welcome the proposal to make powers relating to working mines stricter. But it would be a great pity if much good which may be done in that respect is in danger of being undone because of what appears to be a more or less absolute exemption for abandoned mines. I had hoped that in legislation it might be possible to state that in future no one could abandon responsibility for water seeping from a mine until the responsible water authority had carried out the studies which Clause 45 empowers it to carry out and a licence had been issued to the previous operators or owners which entitled them to spend no more money on it and simply to let it go, or alternatively, that a stipulation had been put upon them that they must leave some kind of safeguarding works to minimise the danger of pollution. That would have been greatly to the public advantage. I see nothing in the legislation which would make that possible.
Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, may be able to give us some encouragement that the National Coal Board, or any other major mine operator which is likely to abandon a mine or to cease pumping works in a mine which prevent pollution, will give an interim guarantee that we shall not see the situation suddenly deteriorate.
I hope that the Minister understands my concern, which I share with the water authority, and will be able to reassure me on this matter. However, I must tell him that although I have looked carefully at the Bill I do not see in it the power that I hoped to see. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to give an undertaking on behalf of the National Coal Board which will provide some interim safeguard.
§ Mr. John SilkinThe hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) will understand that the principle that he has put forward is one of which all hon. Members are aware and have great sympathy with. 967 The difficulty is how to deal with the problem.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the provision. I understand that it was in the original Protection of the Environment Bill. Water from mine workings—this is the difficulty—has always presented a special problem. For that reason such provisions have been put in the Bill.
First, all discharges from working mines are brought under control and will need the consent of the water authority. Secondly, Clause 46—not Clause 45—provides powers for water authorities to carry out the studies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The difficulty with abandoned mines is how to prevent water pollution at all. Whereas water pumped from a working mine may be relatively clean, once a mine has been abandoned the water can become stagnant and carry polluting substances of one kind or another into streams or underground water.
One method of preventing this pollution is to continue pumping. That is an expensive remedy, and to some extent the Government must be the guardian of the prevention of too much expense just as much as any ordinary housekeeper. That is a matter to which we cannot close our minds. Water from abandoned mines might be treated in some other way—I do not know—but that could also be expensive.
The point about the studies under Clause 46 is that they will examine the extent of the problem and, I hope, provide us with a more suitable, but less expensive, solution than those presented to us at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman is patient and accepts that we, too, have a genuine desire to deal with this problem as efficiently, quickly and economically as possible, he might understand that his amendment may be a shade premature. That is the only difference between us.
§ Mr. OnslowI am prepared to be patient, but, by the same token, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to be patient. If he will wait until the studies under Clause 46 have been completed, it may then be right to put the provision in the legislation. It is he who is being premature, not I.
§ Mr. SilkinLet us at least agree that the hon. Gentleman will be patient and the Secretary of State will be impatient to get a solution to the problem. To that extent I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reasonably satisfied.
The amendment would make criminal a person who perhaps had never owned the mine in the first place. The mine might have been sold. The previous owner might have gone into liquidation—a suitable use of the word in this connection! The mine might have had a totally different use. It might, for example, be used in agriculture. It is a little hard that the person who acquires it without knowing any of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman should be penalised. This, too, needs careful study and weighing up.
The good will and the intention are here to see that the scheme works and to see that pollution is prevented to the best of our powers. At the moment, I do not think that the amendment is the right answer, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman may see his way to withdrawing it.
§ Mr. OnslowI am aware of the pitfalls that await back benchers who attempt to amend legislation. They never get the wording right, and cannot be expected to. I realise that the amendment would have side consequences for which I have not provided in a linked series of amendments.
Will the Secretary of State at least meet me on this? Will he indicate as strongly as he can from his important position to the National Coal Board and to any other major operator of an important waterway that he expects them to set themselves a standard of public conscience which may not be embodied in statute? That would prevent a great deal of good work being undone because of the way the legislation reads. On the basis that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to write to the National Coal Board and other major operators to say that there is a gap and that he will be greatly obliged for their assistance in carrying out obligations which the law may not directly require but which the public would expect them to undertake, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. John SilkinBy leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I will see that the attention of those concerned is drawn to the debate and to the important point which he has made.
§ Mr. OnslowI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.