§ '.—(1) Where the carrying on of a prescribed process will involve the release of any substance into a harbour, the enforcing authority shall consult the harbour authority before granting or varying an authorisation.
§
(2) In this section—
harbour" and "harbour authority" have the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964; and
vary", in relation to an authorisation, means imposing further conditions or varying or rescinding conditions.'.—[Mr. Knapman.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)I beg to move, That the clause he read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 37.
Amendment No. 292, in clause 6, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
'(5A) where the authorisation is to cover a discharge to water it should contain a specific section notifying the operator of the requirements of the National Rivers Authority in relation to that discharge in relation to both the standards to be met and the monitoring required.'.Government amendments Nos. 81 to 87, 62 and 88.
§ Mr. KnapmanNew clause 16 would require enforcing authorities to consult harbour authorities before authorising the release of substances into the harbour. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that harbour authorities—that is, those within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1964—have powers and duties in regard to the management, maintenance and improvement of their harbours. Nearly all such authorities have a duty to dredge their harbours, primarily for the safety and convenience of navigation. As so graphically described by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this spoil has to be disposed of. This can be done on land, and I understand that until now a licence has been required under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I understand that henceforth a licence will be required under part II of the Bill.
The alternative is to dump at sea, and that, too. would require a licence. Dumping at sea is generally rather more economical than dumping on land, but the granting of a licence for the purpose may depend on the chemical composition of the dredgings. Chemical interaction takes place in the water column when fresh and salt water mix. This frequently results in substances released in harbours accumulating in sediments to levels far higher than those which were initially released.
It is logical, therefore, that any harbour authority should be concerned about the releases of substances into the water within the harbour, and the new clause recognises that concern. It would require the enforcing authority, before granting authorisation under the new system of control, to consult the harbour authority. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the duty would not impose any serious administrative burden on the enforcing authority. I shall welcome his consideration of the clause. In Committee, he was helpful in accepting amendments when he could, and he put us down gently when he could not.
§ Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)I am flattered that my humble amendment, No. 292, has been grouped with new clause 16. I have hitherto agreed entirely with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has said in this place.
I search for a constituency interest. Whatever may happen to the ozone layer or whatever may be the greenhouse effect, I doubt that Basingstoke will have to deal with the problems. I am bewildered that my amendment has been grouped with the new clause, but that having happened I have the opportunity to make what I believe is a valid point. It is one which I made in Committee, and it concerns integrated pollution control—the principle, the system, its application and the abiding concern of industry that this will not, in effect, be the one-stop shop that the Government have hitherto assured us will be the position.
1103 I do not wish to be repetitive. Many of those who are now here were members of the Committee and heard me advance the argument that I am presenting to the House. There is concern that any particular industrial process will still be subject to the overriding and overruling command of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and that the National Rivers Authority, the privatised water utilities, the waste regulatory authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will still be involved in the regulatory process. Industry is concerned that bureaucracy is being created. Although the principle is sound, the fear is that the wealth and job-creating processes will suffer accordingly. Therefore, the amendment seeks simplification and a lightening of the burden.
That is the basis of the argument behind amendment No. 292.
§ The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier)I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for the way in which they spoke to new clause 16 and amendment No. 292. I shall reply briefly. I must apologise to my hon. Friends at the outset because I shall not be accepting either the new clause or the amendment. I am genuinely sorry because I know how successful they were in Committee in introducing amendments that proved to be acceptable to the Government. I was happy to accept a number of them in their entirety, without having to say that I would return to them on Report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud explained why it is necessary that harbour authorities should be consulted when the following of a prescribed process will involve the direct release of a substance into a harbour. I am pleased to say that schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe consultees in regulations. In that sense, the new clause is otiose. If it is right that harbour authorities should be consulted, that will be prescribed in the regulations. The regulations are the right place to define statutory consultees. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause because I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of his argument.
I think that there is a connection between the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the new clause introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. Both concern water, the NRA and harbours, possibly, tenuous though that connection might be. Clause 25 meets the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. It establishes that HMIP will be the lead body with which industry must interface. HMIP will consult the NRA, which will then have the power to veto an application if it considers that releases from the process will contribute to a failure to achieve any water quality objective or to require the inclusion of conditions in the authorisation that HMIP grants.
§ Mr. KnapmanI am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I agree that Basingstoke is not likely to have a harbour. That is just about as certain as saying that neither he nor I will make wet Tories. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister for his comments. 1104 As the House has placed certain duties upon harbour authorities, I hope that the authorities will be consulted under regulations in due course. In view of my hon. Friend's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.