§ 15. Mr. Brandon-BravoTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the light of increased river pollution from farm effluent, he will be seeking stiffer penalties on those found guilty.
§ Mr. GummerThe Government have drawn the attention of the Magistrates Association to the need for penalties to reflect the seriousness of water pollution offences.
§ Mr. Brandon-BravoDoes my right hon. Friend agree that if those penalties are to be effective they must be painful, and seen to be painful? There is growing public concern and a growing belief that the polluter should pay, not just the fine in a magistrates' court, but the cost of putting right the damage done by that pollution.
§ Mr. GummerIt is important that the fines should be sufficient. The highest penalty for a single case in 1987 was £3,000, with costs of £4,500. We are beginning to crack down very hard on this offence. Ultimately, it is up to the farming community to ensure that its enterprises and activities do not harm the water of the nation. We are determined to see that that happens.
§ Mr. HardyIs the Minister aware that since this Government took office the condition of Britain's rural rivers and streams has deteriorated at an astonishing pace? It is no good calling for extra penalties if the water authorities do not bring prosecutions. In many areas there has been a sharp decline in the number of prosecutions brought, despite an enormous increase in the number of offences.
§ Mr. GummerI do not think that that assessment of o waters and rivers stands up. We are determined to support water authorities when they bring prosecutions and people are found guilty. We are also supportive of the strongest implementation of the fines imposed by magistrates. The hon. Gentleman must accept that it is up to the water authorities to carry out those prosecutions. In many cases they have found that by conciliation and work with farmers they can produce a better response than by taking farmers to court.