VARIATION OF CONDITIONS AND REVOCATION OF LICENCES (Hansard, 19 July 1974)

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 11, line 36, at end insert— Provided that if a disposal authority has under paragraph (b) of this subsection disregarded a water authority or. in Scotland, a river purification authority and it appears to the water authority or the river purification authority (as the case may be) that the activities permitted by the conditions specified in the disposal licence, as modified by the disposal authority, are causing or are likely to cause pollution to relevant waters (within the meaning of Part II of this Act) in the area of the authority, the authority may request the Secretary of State to direct the disposal authority to cancel or alter the conditions specified in the disposal licence as so modified and it shall be the duty of the disposal authority to comply with the direction given to it in pursuance of this subsection.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we may also consider Amendment No. 6, in page 12, line 5, at end insert— '(4A) if it appears to a water authority or in Scotland. to a river purification authority that the continuation of activities permitted by the conditions specified in a disposal licence would cause pollution to relevant waters (within the meaning of Part II of this Act) in the area of the authority, and the disposal authority which issued the disposal licence has on the request of the water authority or the river purification authority, as the case may be, refused to serve a notice on the holder of the licence revoking the licence, the water authority or the river purification authority, as the case may be, may request the Secretary of State to direct the disposal authority to serve a notice under subsection (4) of this section on the holder of the licence; and it shall be the duty of the disposal authority to comply with a direction given to it in pursuance of this subsection.

§ Mr. Jones
The Amendment seeks to deal with the concern that has been expressed by the National Water Council about the relative interests of the authorities concerned. The wording at the end of Clause 5(4) enables the water authority to refer cases to the Secretary of State where it disagrees with the disposal authority about the issue of a licence or the conditions to be imposed. Subsection (2) carries that provision into this clause but because of the wording of Clause 5 the water authority is only given the right 948 of reference if the proposal is referred to the authority by a disposal authority. In cases involving the issue of a licence reference must always be made to the water authority but subsection (2)(b) creates exceptions to that rule where it is proposed to vary the conditions.
The point of the amendments is that the authorities will be expected to, and of course will, co-operate satisfactorily in practice, but cases could arise where the water interests were prejudiced without this being intended by the disposal authority or without its even being known until after the event. Therefore, while leaving a discretion to the disposal authority and thus maintaining administrative flexibility, the amendment provides a necessary safeguard, just as Clause 11(9) allows a water authority to intervene in the case of a disposal authority's own site.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
Clause 7 concerns the variation and revocation of licences by the disposal authority. The circumstances in which that can happen are spelt out in subsection (1). A disposal authority is required to vary conditions wherever necessary to avoid danger to public health or water pollution or serious detriment to amenity and in certain other circumstances. The amendments would give water authorities a right to intervene, to secure variation or revocation where they thought it necessary, by application to the Secretary of State. This seems to us much too cumbersome a procedure, which would not foster the good relations that we want between the disposal authorities and the water authorities, on which implementation of the Bill will depend.
The proper thing for a water authority to do if it gets itself into difficulty is to bring the matter to the attention of the disposal authorities. We cannot think that, given the traditional good sense which exists between public bodies, local authorities and so on, there would not then be agreement. There is no reason to suppose that the disposal authorities would be reluctant to do whatever was necessary. Indeed, if it were water pollution that the water authority was concerned about, the disposal authority would have a positive duty to vary the licence, for the reasons I gave. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will 949 share my belief that the amendment will in practice not be necessary and that we can rely on the good sense of the public authorities concerned.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
I share that view, and, in the light of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.