PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SS. 30 AND 31 (Hansard, 19 July 1974)

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 48, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
The amendment is concerned with a contradiction in Clause 32 which deals with consents for discharges of trade and sewage effluent referred to under Clause 30. It provides for the publication in the prescribed form of notice of the application or instrument. But, according to subsection (4), a water authority shall be entitled to disregard in certain circumstances the necessity for publication.
I think that the policy that publicity shall be given for effluent discharge, and so on, is correct throughout the Bill. But surely there is a contradiction here. I believe that publicity should be given in all cases. That is a submission which is made by the National Anglers Council.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that this is an exceptional procedure, but it is designed to deal only with very small and exceptional matters, where the water authority is absolutely satisfied that it should exercise its judgment in respect of these discharges.
The amendment seeks to take away from the water authorities the exercise of that judgment. As the provision is principally intended to deal with hundreds of small and very insignificant discharges made from such places as domestic septic tanks, we do not think that it would be appropriate to have the whole panoply of the Bill brought into play when the water authority is absolutely satisfied 970 as to the effect of any individual discharge.
As I have said, the discharges are usually so insignificant that it would be a waste of money and time if it was necessary to go through the whole procedure of advertising in the London Gazette and local newspapers if the discharge were to have no appreciable effect. It will be the daily task of water authorities to decide what effect effluents of various kinds are likely to have on the various rivers in their areas. There is no better agency for taking on this task. The consents that they give in small, individual cases will be recorded on public registers. If an authority has misjudged a question—this is what would then cause concern—the Bill contains all the machinery which would be necessary for revoking or varying the order which may be involved.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied, therefore, that this matter can be left to the water authorities to deal with administratively.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
It is a little hard expecting, in small cases such as these, the people who will be affected to a greater or lesser degree to have to inspect the register. I should have thought that it would be much simpler, as is done widely under the town and country planning procedures, for notification to be put in the local newspaper—which is what is referred to here—and not the London Gazette.
I appreciate, however, that this matter has been given consideration by the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 48, line 43, leave out subsection (5).
Having referred to what the Minister called "small" and "exceptional", we now turn to the other exception, which is the applications for large, significant effluent discharges—those important enough to go to the Secretary of State. What is proposed in the Bill is that the same provisions of non-appearance in local newspapers and so on shall apply. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman will get over the advocacy for "small" and "exceptional", as he said, and now the type of application, which of necessity, 971 because of its significance, goes to the Secretary of State.
One perhaps begins to feel that there is a cover-up possibility here, and that these applications should surely have wide publicity. Although I agreed to accept the hon. Gentleman's previous assurance, I shall listen to the next assurance with even greater interest.

§ Mr. Tony Newton (Braintree)
I wish to ask the Minister about the scope of the authority's powers—

§ Mr. Newton
I should like to know a little more about the powers of the water authorities on which we are now being asked to agree special procedures. The Minister knows from a Question of mine that he has answered and a brief word we had beforehand, that there was a horrible accident in my constituency recently, in which a small boy was drowned in the sludge pit at a privately operated sewage plant. Although it would be improper to comment at length before the inquest, it is obvious that the safety precautions were not all we would have liked. It appears from the Minister's answer this week that there is no statutory powers governing safety precautions at plants of this kind, as opposed to the nature of the effluent and the pollution, which has also been a problem at this plant.
Under Clause 30 the water authorities can make specific requirements about certain matters before granting consent, but they also have a general power: The conditions subject to which a water authority may give its consent in pursuance of this section shall be such reasonable conditions as the authority thinks fit". Would that allow authorities to impose conditions as to safety precautions at plants like this for the protection of the public? I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that it will and that he will do what he can to see that the authorities use these powers and inspect such 972 plants. If there is not, and would not be after the Bill is passed, power to deal with safety, the law would be unsatisfactory and I should want to press him further in other ways.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
The amendment would leave out the provision which requires that the arrangements set out in the clause for the advertising of applications for consent to discharge should also apply, with prescribed modifications, to applications called in by the Secretary of State under Clause 31. Our intention is that the procedure for advertising applications and receiving representations should be the same in principle for called-in applications as for others. I am sure that that would meet with agreement.
It is certainly not intended to exclude publication in local newspapers. There is nothing sinister about the phrase "subject to prescribed modifications". That is a drafting convenience which enables the necessary adaptations to be made to the procedure in the different circumstances in which the Secretary of State decides to call in an application. I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) will be happy that we are ensuring that the same procedure applies in both cases.
The whole House will sympathise with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) over the tragic accident which occurred in his constituency, apparently in a privately owned sewage works where, I understand, the boundary fencing was inadequately or improperly maintained. I can tell him that a code of safety exists. It is entitled "Safety in sewers and large sewage works." It gives comprehensive advice about the design and operation of works, including the need to erect and maintain fences and warning notices to prevent access by the public, especially children. We hope that all who are responsible for sewage works will make certain—they have an obligation so to do—that the code is practised.
There is a power under Section 17 of the Public Health Act 1936 whereby water authorities can, on request, adopt private sewage works. If there is any question of people being unable properly to maintain the safety of their works, the water authorities can take them over.
I am advised that this power is not there to encourage privately owned works 973 to be allowed to decay so that they may then be taken over. I do not suppose there is a great deal of profitability in this operation but we do not want people to rely on this power, allow works to decay and then go to water authorities saying "This has happened. Will you take us over?" Owners of these private works have a social responsibility properly to maintain and fence their works.
One of the reasons why we opposed this Bill originally was that it left out the privately-owned water companies. Obviously at some stage we shall wish to return to them. As I have told the House, the administrative arrangements for this Bill were so rushed, although undertaken with such skill by the new water authorities in a short period of time, that we do not propose to approach that problem for at least a year or so. We have told the water authorities that we propose to let them have two years to settle down and get the new scheme working before there is a major review.
I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that when we come to conduct this review of the working of the Act I will specifically look into the question of privately-owned sewage companies and make sure that I keep him informed of the position.

§ Mr. Newton
I accept what the Minister says. The instance I mentioned involved not a private water company but a developer. Because the sewerage system for the area was inadequate he had to put a system in before he could build the houses. This is an inherently unsatisfactory situation. He does not want to operate it. It ought to be operated by a public body. I understand that the Anglian Water Authority is considering taking it over, and I am pressing it hard to do so. I understand the Minister's concentration on this question of the operation of private sewage plants. Although this code exists, there appears to be no power for anyone to make sure that it is observed in plants which have not been taken over. Can the power under Clause 30 of the Bill dealing with the general powers of water authorities to rive consents be used to impose safety precautions, and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman encourage water authorities so to use that power?

§ Mr. Howell
I can answer that point but not, I think, to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman or myself. Powers of control are directed at the quality of the effluent. Powers of control over private sewage works do not extend to the safety of the premises from which the discharge is made. The effect of that, therefore, is that water authorities cannot deal with the safety of private sewage works, but I shall certainly ensure that the matter is taken up in the general review. I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing our attention to it and for giving us the opportunity to remind owners of private sewage works of then responsibilities and of the need rigorously to apply the code.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
In view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.