OPERATIONS BY WATER AUTHORITIES TO REMEDY OR FORESTALL POLLUTION OF WATER. (Hansard, 19 July 1974)

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 61, line 14, after 'that', insert: 'In consequence of a change in circumstances'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we may also take the following amendments:

§ Mr. Ross
I do not intend to be here too late tonight so I shall be extremely brief. The amendments try to provide compensation for people who are accused of polluting when in fact they have a legal right to discharge.
Clause 41 already gives water authorities considerable power to control discharges of trade or sewage effluents injurious to the flora or fauna of a stream. It deals with pollution arising from a discharge made with the consent of the water authority and in accordance with the conditions contained in that consent. That is a legal discharge. Pollution arising from the entry into the stream of noxious poisonous or polluting matter is an illegal discharge.
The amendments deal only with legal discharges. If pollution arises from a legal discharge the water authority responsible for issuing the consent has made an error of judgment and as the competent authority it surely should accept responsibility for the pollution and for consequential damage. Therefore, the amendments would afford industry and others some modicum of a safeguard for legal discharges by restricting the number of occasions when the water authority may take action under Clause 42 where a change of circumstances has taken place.
In Committee I argued more widely on this point and the argument was not 976 acceptable to the Minister, but now he has come forward with Amendments No. 79 and 80 which go some way to meeting my point and which, although not entirely satisfactory, are probably about as good as I am likely to get. It might, therefore, save the time of the House if I withdrew my amendments on the understanding that the Minister proposes to move his.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has inadvertently added to my problems. I understood that he was rising to move his amendment. He could not speak unless there was a motion before the House. If I put the Question the Minister could then speak to his amendment and the hon. Member could withdraw his subsequently.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
As you instruct me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not speak to the amendment, but shall move my own in due course.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his amendment?

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I trust that the Minister will in due course move his amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To save the time of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Rossi
I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 61, line 16, after 'caused', insert— '(other than by the intermittent appearance of sewage fungus)' We discussed the subject of the amendment at some length in Committee, and I do not wish to repeat the arguments. We are saying that the pollution that is injurious to the fauna or flora of a stream to which the water authority must have regard must not include the intermittent appearance of sewage fungus. Although a great deal of experimentation has been going on into the sources of that nuisance and into possible ways of dealing with it, no solution has yet been found, despite the expenditure of a great deal of money. The Minister said in Committee hat he would consider the matter sympathetically. We hope that he will accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
I have re-examined the matter since our brief discussion in 977 Committee but I cannot find a satisfactory method of dealing with this troublesome problem.
Sewage fungus is a growth that can occur in water containing sewage effluent. Sometimes its appearance seems to be caused by the presence of other industrial effluents, but the cause of the fungus is obscure and our knowledge about it and its treatment is even more obscure. Therefore we must be very careful in the restrictions we place upon people when we are dealing with a phenomenon about which we have limited knowledge.
The amendment proposes that where a new consent or significant variation of an existing consent leads to the appearance of sewage fungus which causes injurious pollution, the water authority should not be under the duty otherwise provided to act to prevent further occurrences. I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise on reflection that that cannot be right.
Industry has expressed anxiety about the wording of the clause. It feels that it would act harshly on industrial discharges and create uncertainty in their planning. The clause, however, makes allowance for the fact that a discharger will probably not be able to change or stop a discharge immediately, and allows for a period within which the necessary changes can be made. Moreover, any restoration of the stream is to be restoration as far as is "reasonably practicable", which is the approach we both adopted.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment, although I have a great deal of sympathy with what he seeks to achieve.

§ Mr. Rossi
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 62 leave out lines 45 to 48.
Why is a water authority, under a clause which deals with operations by water authorities to remedy or forestall pollution of water, prevented from impeding or preventing the making of any discharge in pursuance of a consent? There seems to be almost a contradiction in the wording. The operations are directed to the remedy and forestalling of pollution, and yet the authority is prevented from impeding or preventing the making of a discharge—in other words, sealing up an effluent flow. How does that come about?

§ Mr. Denis Howell
I do not know whether I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman but I shall do my best. If I cannot satisfy him now I shall write to him. What he is seeking to do is to delete the proviso in Clause 42(4) that a water authority may not use its powers under the subsection, which enables it to carry out operations to forestall and remedy pollution, to prevent the making of a discharge which has the consent of the authority.
The reason for the proviso is that a procedure already exists in Clauses 33 and 34 for revoking or varying a consent which in certain circumstances renders the authority liable to pay compensation to the discharger, and also gives him rights of appeal. It would be wrong for the authority—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—to be able to bypass that procedure and to prevent the discharge from being made by the operatives under Clause 42(4). That is not to say that the authority feels that the discharge, if it continues, will cause pollution if it is not able to act quickly to forestall it.
The earlier provisions of Clause 42, as we have seen, put a duty on the authority to vary or revoke the consent if the damage to the flora or fauna has occurred. If the damage is not so serious but still justifies revocation or variation of the consent to provide proper protection for persons, such as riparian owners, likely to be affected by the discharge, the authority may act under Clause 34(3) to revoke or vary consent and then use its power under Clause 42(4) to forestall or to remedy the pollution. Revocation or variation of the consent is achieved by notice under Clause 33(1). It may be immediate and take effect pending any 979 appeal, so there is no need or reason for delay where speed happens to be essential.
I admit that that explanation is technical. It involves more than one clause, and the action of one clause on another. I think that when the hon. Gentleman has had time to study what I have said he will see the reason for the Government's not accepting the proposal he has put forward.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I compliment the Minister on the way that he has read his brief and the person responsible for its drafting.