HL Deb 26 June 1951 vol 172 cc313-20

3.20 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Prohibition on use of stream for disposal of polluting matter, refuse, etc.

(3) The said subsection shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge at water raised or drained from any underground part of a mine into a stream in the same condition in which it is raised or drained from underground;

Provided that the Minister may by order (which shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made by him) direct that this subsection shall not apply to discharges into any specified stream or part of a stream.

(7) Where an offence punishable under this section has been committed by a body corporate, any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to a[...] in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence, unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)

moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) Subject to section five of this Act, the said subsection shall not by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge into a stream of any trade effluent or any effluent from the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority, if—

  1. (a) it is not reasonably practicable to dispose of the effluent otherwise than by discharging it (directly or indirectly) into that or some other stream; and
  2. (b) all reasonably practicable steps are taken to prevent the effluent being unnecessarily poisonous, noxious or polluting;
Provided that this subsection shall not have effect so long as the period referred to in subsection (2) of section eight of this Act (as varied by any Order in Council under subsection (3) of that section) has not expired or been terminated.

The noble Lord said: There was general agreement during the debate on Second Reading that this was a non-controversial Bill, and this Amendment carries out an undertaking, given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning. It deals with the period which may occur between the date on which the need for the river board to obtain the Minister's consent to proceedings expires and the date on which by-laws prescribing a standard with which the effluent must comply become operative. This Amendment makes it impossible for a person discharging an effluent to be liable to proceedings if it is not reasonably practicable for him otherwise to dispose of the effluent and if he is taking all reasonably practicable steps to prevent it being unnecessarily polluting. I do not think I need say any more, and accordingly I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 35, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I rather hope the noble Lord will say something more. It is true that there was a good deal of discussion about this matter in another place and that it was to be reconsidered. Frankly, my attitude to this Amendment will be entirely dependent on what the noble Lord proposes to do about the Amendment to Clause 7 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Lloyd and myself. If I may put it concisely, what this Amendment does is to give a defence of "best practice" to anybody who puts anything into a river, subject to bylaws not having been made; that is to say, this will apply during the interim period, not exceeding seven years, during which bylaws are to be made. If the Bill is amended in the way I suggest, before the bylaws are made a survey will have been undertaken and anybody who considers a bylaw setting up a standard to be unnecessary will have had the opportunity of voicing his objection. Then the bylaws will be approved by the Minister or Ministers; they will come into operation, and will govern everybody. During the interim period, however, some companies will have been discharging effluent into a river. Some may not have been troubling very much what they were doing, and may not have been using the best practice. Nobody seeks to defend them. On the other hand, some companies will have been using the best available practice. I agree that that is a reasonable defence, and ultimately no doubt it will be covered by bylaws. It should apply to an old established company which has been discharging its effluent into an industrial stretch of river. But suppose there is an industrial company which sets up a factory beside an entirely clean and wholly unpolluted stretch of river. Then an entirely different situation arises. It seems to me to be unreasonable that such a company should be entirely unrestricted and should be able to pollute that hitherto untouched stretch of river and have a complete defence if they are able to say, "We are using the best practice."

I was not a party to the discussions which took place behind the scenes, but I was told that my Amendment to Clause 7 would be accepted. If that is so, the position will be, that while a defence of "best practice" will be given to an existing company discharging out of an existing outlet, river boards will have the power to approve or disapprove all new outlets. That seems to me to make all the difference. By that Amendment the companies will be afforded their proper defence, and at the same time river boards will be given proper control over stretches of river which hitherto have been intact. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that he agrees to my Amendment to Clause 7. If he does, I will gladly accept this Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

About a year ago I raised this question in your Lordships' House, and I thought I received a sympathetic reply from His Majesty's Government. On that occasion I pointed out that the pollution of rivers that has gone on over the past century and a half can be traced to the fact that there is a section in the Act of 1876 which is practically synonymous with paragraph (a) of this Amendment. That section has been a shield for the polluter throughout that time. What is needed is the repeal of that section, so that every polluter will be forced to engage in research on how he can refrain from continuing his pollution. I am bound to repeat what I said then: that every anti-pollution Bill that goes through Parliament and which, fails in its effect, gives new fortification to the polluter. Therefore I very much regret to see paragraph (a) of the noble Lord's Amendment. I have voiced my protest and I hope that His Majesty's Government will think again upon this question, because if they examine its history they will find that what I have said this afternoon is correct.

LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR

I am pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has called attention to the relationship between this Amendment and his Amendment to Clause 7. These Amendments are closely related, and I agree that to accept my Amendment without accepting his later Amendment would not meet what we both have in mind. Therefore, I hope to shorten our discussions by indicating that I intend to accept his Amendment in order to fulfil what I want to do by this Amendment. We consider that both Amendments are complementary, and therefore I shall accept his Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

That is, after all, "the bit of sugar for the bird." That is the price of acceptance, and not appeasement. So far as I am concerned, we can shorten the proceedings to that extent. I think that if my noble friend Lord Saltoun will look at the two Amendments together, he will not feel that 1876 is necessarily the governing factor in this matter. So far as I am concerned, if my Amendment is accepted, I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.30 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to leave out subsection (3), and to insert: (3) The Minister may by order (which shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made by him) direct that the said subsection shall not, by virtue of paragraph (a) thereof, penalise the discharge of water raised or drained from a mine into any specified stream or part of a stream in the same condition in which it is raised or drained from the mine.

The noble Viscount said: I hope the Government will agree to this very simple Amendment, which deals with mine water. Here it is true that the Act of 1876 is relevant because hitherto that Act has governed this matter, and I would agree with my noble friend that it is not wise to leave that entirely alone. The Act of 1876 gave a special charter of pollution to all mines, and allowed mines to put anything, however filthy, into any river, however clean. I must admit, against myself, that the Hobday Report, which is the bible on this matter, did suggest that that provision might be retained, pending technical investigation. But we want to do a little better, if we can, than was done in 1876, and the Scottish Bill does it, I think, very simply. There is no doubt about the offensiveness of some of this mine water—I understand that a particularly objectionable variety is something known as "ochre water" which is full of every kind of poison and is deleterious to all life. The Scottish Bill, which will come to us presently, provides that mines, like everyone else, shall be subject to the general provisions of the Bill, and that the Minister may have power to exempt mines if he is satisfied that it is impracticable for them to carry out the provisions against pollution. We want the mines to do everything they can; and they will be encouraged to do that if they are subject to the ordinary law, with the escape clause enabling them to secure exemption, with the approval of the Minister. It would be unreasonable to have one law for mines in Scotland and another for mines in England. I suggest that my Amendment would bring this Bill entirely into line with the Scottish Bill which is now before another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (3), and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD MACDONALD 0F GWAENYSGOR

I can well understand the noble Viscount desiring to deal with mines in England on the same basis that mines in Scotland are dealt with in the Scottish Bill, but I think that I shall be able to show that there is a fairly good reason why we are unable to do it in this Bill. In the first place, the number of mines affected in Scotland, I am advised, is six. The number of mines that would be affected in England and Wales is over 100. The noble Viscount perhaps knows as well as anyone in your Lordships' House that an enormous amount of work by experts and by technical administrative staff will be called for if they have to make investigations immediately. For that reason we feel it would be unwise to accept the Amendment. As regards new discharges, I think they are very well cared for. As the noble Viscount knows, the National Coal Board must give notice to the Minister before new shafts are sunk, and there are arrangements with the board for ensuring that water bearing strata are properly sealed off.

With regard to existing discharges, a matter about which I think the noble Viscount is especially worried, I may say that the Bill permits the National Coal Board to complete their survey, and also enables the river boards to decide, in consultation with the National Coal Board, what treatment is possible and justified. Failing agreement, if the river boards think orders should be made bringing the discharges within the scope of this Bill, it is provided that the Minister shall intervene. Simply because it is in the Scottish Bill, there is no ground for saying that this provision should be in this Bill. As I have said, approximately 100 pits in England and Wales would be affected, so that the position is very different from that in Scotland. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.

LORD LLOYD

I am rather sorry that the noble Lord has not felt able to accept our Amendment, and for this reason. After all, the situation as it is at the moment is that, as my noble friend has said, the mines have a charter to pollute anything they like at all times—and so far as I know, they do a good deal of polluting—but the Minister can, in individual cases, remove from any particular mine their exemption. All we are suggesting is that the position should be reversed; in other words—if we may take a leaf out of the next Amendment which we are moving—the mines are not to be held innocent pending the proving of their guilt, but the other way round. I cannot help feeling that if this Amendment were accepted, it would inspire in the minds of those responsible for the mines a general sort of alertness to this problem, and certain pollution from mines which is now taking place, and which is unnecessary, might be avoided. The case for the Amendment, I think, is a good one, and I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot see fit to accept it.

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to associate myself with what has been said on this side of the Committee, and to add one point. When noble Lords who are concerned go into this question of pollution of rivers, I implore them to remember that one discharge of poisonous effluent can work untold havoc in a river, destroying nearly all the fish life in it. And yet, when you come to investigate conditions in that river and analyse the water later, you may well find that it comes up to your standard of purity. I submit that the Government are making a mistake, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has suggested, in making a general exemption subject to exceptions. As I have said, I feel sure we should be in a much stronger position if we made the rule general, subject to exemption. At any rate, I hope that when the Bill comes to be put into practice, that point will not be forgotten.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

Before we discuss the next Amendment, perhaps it would be convenient if I moved that the House do now resume, so that I may make a statement on Persia. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do now resume. —(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.