HL Deb 20 May 1958 vol 209 cc445-54

2.53 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subsection (3) of section eight of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, praying that the period of seven years ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, during which river boards are, under subsection (2) of the said section, prohibited from taking action without the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in respect of certain contraventions or apprehended contraventions of section two of that Act, be extended for a further period of three years so as to expire on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, makes it an offence for any person to cause or knowingly to permit polluting matter to enter a stream. The enforcement of this provision, whether by prosecution or by preventive proceedings under the Act, was left in the main to river boards. The Act provides that proceedings for contravention in respect of any trade effluent or any effluent from a local authority's sewage disposal works shall not be instituted by a river board, during the first seven years after the passing of the Act, without the consent of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Act further provides that the seven year period (which would otherwise expire on the 31st July next) may be extended by Order in Council.

There was nothing new about making pollution of rivers an offence. That dates back to the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876. Nor was there anything new about the need for obtaining the Minister's consent to the institution of proceedings, because under the 1876 Act consent was necessary before proceedings could be taken in respect of trade discharges. What was new was the widening of the field to include the necessity for obtaining the Minister's consent before a local authority could be prosecuted and the restriction of the need for that consent to a limited period.

The provision with which this Motion is concerned was introduced only during the Committee proceedings on the Bill that eventually became the Act of 1951. There seem to have been a number of reasons for it. Among them was the feeling that the river boards, which had been set up only in 1948 with wide powers of river control over large catchment areas, needed time to develop before they were in a position to deal adequately with the complex problem of river pollution. There was the hope, too, that general standards for rivers could be devised within a few years and that their application through by-laws would be the most powerful instrument in improving the regrettable state of some of our rivers. At the same time it was expected that all properly treated sewage works effluents and trade effluents could reasonably comply with the by-laws and that the authorities and industries discharging them, would be free from danger of prosecution under the Act, so long as they so complied.

Perhaps most important, however, was the need for careful control over capital investment. Unless there was some hold over legal proceedings, there might well have been a disproportionate slice of the capital available for investment going into construction of sewage works as a likely consequence of successful court proceedings. As events have turned out, the capital investment problem is still with us and certain technical difficulties have stood in the way of devising by-laws prescribing river standards. It is clearly going to be very difficult to devise workable by-laws under the Act. There are so many variables to complicate the problem. Not only do streams vary greatly in their flow from time to time, but also at any given time from- reach to reach. Similarly, effluents vary tremendously both in quality and quantity, even from any one given discharge. There are also speed of flow, effluent and stream temperature, dilution, air temperature, flora and fauna and many other factors to be considered.

In these circumstances, my right honourable friend felt the need for a thorough review of the situation. This he asked his Central Advisory Water Committee to carry out, and to advise him whether the seven year period should be extended. For this purpose and the wider purpose of examining the law affecting trade effluents, they appointed a sub-committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Armer; it has on it members belonging to river boards and to local authorities, as well as industrialists and technical specialists. The sub-committee took evidence from all the interests involved, and in their report, which was recently published, they unanimously recommended the extension of the seven year period by a further three years. The Central Advisory Water Commitee adopted this report and my right honourable friend decided to accept their advice; and accordingly we have put down the present Motion.

I hope your Lordships will not think from what I have said that Her Majesty's Government are not interested in the state of our rivers—that I appear at this Dispatch Box as some sort of "polluter's friend," content to shelter behind the Armer Committee. Nothing is further from the truth and my right honourable friend has made this plain in answer to Parliamentary Questions in another place and, only on Friday last, in a speech he made to the River Boards' Association. Nevertheless, we must face facts. Many of our rivers are in a bad state. There has been neglect for a century, and it would be unprofitable to try to assess the blame.

To get them back into a wholesome state can only be done gradually. It needs a vast amount of money and a great deal more research. There are many conflicting interests involved. They have all to be met. Clearly, also, the money cannot be found all at once, and, indeed, even if it could, it certainly could not be spent—for one thing, it would be beyond the capacity of the engineering industry. It was in all these circumstances that the Minister felt he had to have advice from those most closely in contact with the problem as to whether it would be better to let the period of consent expire or to extend it, and if so for how long? The advice my right honourable friend has received is unanimous—that is something of importance on a question like this. The Government believe, my Lords, that that advice is sound, and I feel that the present interest of the rivers and all their users will best be met by accepting it. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty under subsection (3) of section eight of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, praying that the period of seven years ending on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, during which river boards are, under subsection (2) of the said section, prohibited from taking action without the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in respect of certain contraventions or apprehended contraventions of section two of that Act, be extended for a further period of three years so as to expire on the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.—(Lord Mancroft.)

3.1 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, as always the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, speaks in a very persuasive way on such a matter as this. We are not concerned this afternoon whether he is briefed as the polluters' friend or not, because we have to deal with the problem as it stands. I am concerned in my own mind to find rather more definite reasons, if I can, as to why a statutory period of seven years is to be extended by three. What is the actual position?—apart from that overriding point which the noble Lord made, that probably it is difficult to find the capital investment that would be necessary in order to clean out some of the rivers which are subject to this effluence and nuisance? On the other hand, it seemed to me that possibly the powers concerned had been interested also in what would be the effect in certain waters of the effluence from the new atomic power stations. That question did not happen to be mentioned by the noble Lord—I am sure it has been in his mind.

When it comes to a question as to what are the powers of the river board, this measure is to enable them to initiate inquiries or proceedings. At present, they are limited by the restrictions contained in the Statute of 1951. I have to declare a local interest, although not a financial one. The Government are getting on rapidly with the completion of the atomic power station at the River Blackwater.

The view of those on the river board side, at least, and certainly, of the people who feel that they are in danger of losing a most profitable oyster industry, is that if there is to be here an effluence which, as some people say, will very nearly destroy the oysters in the region. If we give consent to this Order to-day, I hope that there will be no question of preventing the river board's (because they act very strongly for the oyster fisheries), from putting their case to the authorities concerned and doing what they can to protect a localised, yet very important industry.

Of course, the general question still remains to be solved—that is, how, with the development of modern effluence into our waterways, the rivers are to be properly cleaned out. The question of the general state of our water supply has been raised on a number of occasions by the noble Lord opposite. That works in with this matter and raises other questions of capital investment, such as proper capacity for storage and the like, when the water has been properly treated and prepared for the particular functions for which it is required. I do not pro- pose for a moment to oppose the Motion the noble Lord has put before the House, but I feel that on the particular localised question I have raised it is essential that we should safeguard the rights of the river board in this matter. If the station is to be completed and actually discharging its effluence before the three-year extension period has expired, I should like some assurance on that matter.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I should like to ask a question. Further to what my noble Leader has said, would not the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, agree that, with the development of atomic power stations and the development and the use of detergents—fostered, in my view, by a totally uneconomic scheme of national advertising—we are losing ground in this country in our battle against the pollution of our waterways and rivers? May I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are fully alive to this problem? Every day we read of still greater pollution; we read also that a vast majority of our sewerage outlets from the countryside are being made ineffective by the continual use of these detergents. Would he give the House an assurance that the Government are really alive to the danger to the amenities of the countryside, as my noble friend has said, and also to the purity of the water which we have to consume?

LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE

My Lords, may I ask one question on this matter? I am not very clear whether this is an English Act, or whether it applies also to Scotland. I say that because when, as a Member of the other place, I sat for a Scottish seat in East Edinburgh, we had a river there which had been polluted and difficulties had been going on for over a hundred years without any conclusion being reached. I should like to know whether the Act applies to Scotland as well as to England.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether any consents have been given by the Minister for prosecutions to be taken, and whether any applications for consent have been refused. It is very difficult to discuss this matter without more complete information, but if it is the case that it has proved impossible to formulate by-laws to deal with the problem it would appear to be all the more necessary that there should be some prosecutions in the grosser cases of pollution; and there are undoubtedly a very large number of them.

It is also difficult, without any figures being put before this House, to form an opinion upon the question of the capital expenditure that might be involved. But I should like to point out that, indirectly, capital expenditure is being incurred because of the failure to purify our rivers, which is making it necessary to find sources of water for public supplies from greater and greater distances, at very high cost indeed. I am under the impression that the Metropolitan Water Board, for instance, have been obliged recently to construct a line of pipes from its intakes in the Thames reaches for about twenty miles across the North-eastern part of the Metropolis in order to replace the River Lee as a source of water supply for East London, because that river has become so polluted—especially with detergents, which are, of course, a very undesirable constituent of drinking water. So there are a great many considerations to be taken into account in this matter, and it is most desirable that some efforts should be made and that the Minister should give some consents to the taking of proceedings.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

My Lords, if I may make a few observations on this matter I would say that, while of course we abide by the Minister's decision, for the reasons given in bringing in this Order, yet the river board world must express the strong hope that this extension of three years will be the final of the three links in the ten-years chain by which river boards have been held back—rather at times straining at the leash—from contemplating proceedings against offenders under the Act. Since the 1948 Act was passed, river boards have had ample time to get down to their duties and we are glad that the Government eventually have come to the view that the river boards are responsible authorities. Of course we are grateful that that fact was recognised a fortnight ago in your Lordships' House, when the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, conceded our point requesting that river boards should be consulted and notified before orders are made for taking water from sources necessary under drought emergency.

3.11 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, let me deal first with the question of detergents, which several noble Lords have raised. That problem is being studied by the Standing Technical Committee on Detergents, which was set up last year, and is also being examined by the manufacturers, who, I may add, have given the fullest and most helpful cooperation in this matter. I understand that they are now hopeful of producing a detergent which will eliminate the elements not now capable of being broken down at the point of sewage treatment. I have not the technical knowledge to make any comment on this question now, but those who advise me tell me that the prospect of the problem being overcome in the near future is bright.

The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, mentioned the difficult question of atomic waste. That is a subject of separate legislation and is under the control of the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I can assure the noble Viscount that the Government share his apprehensions and agree with him on the need to keep the most careful watch on this particular problem.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, is he giving the House an assurance that this Committee of experts who are examining this problem are hopeful of finding an answer to bringing back into proper use the septic tank drainage used in the major part of the countryside?

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I cannot go quite so far as that, but the Committee are very hopeful of making considerable progress in the matter of detergents. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, talked about greater pollution. I would not quite agree with him there: greater possible pollution, or greater potential pollution would be better. Those who use the rivers are becoming much more pollution-minded (this is an unhappy expression), much more aware of their duties and conscious of the evils that flow from an indiscriminate use of rivers for drainage purposes. If the noble Lord looks at the figures, I think that he will be convinced that a great deal of progress has been made in the last ten years. Much more money has been spent by local authorities on works and a great deal more activity has been displayed by this Government than was displayed by Governments in the past. The country is becoming definitely more aware of its responsibilities in this matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, asked me about prosecutions. I understand that twenty-five applications have been made; that in seven cases consent has been given; five are still pending and the rest have been withdrawn. Perhaps your Lordships will he interested in the results. The fines were quite considerable: 130 guineas, 120 guineas, £600—for a second offence. These are considerable fines, showing that people are taking this matter seriously. I think it fair to add that in only one case was consent to prosecution refused.

The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, asked about Scotland. I should like to take further advice before answering him definitely, but from a quick look through the Bill it appears to me to apply to Scotland. However, I will make certain. The noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked whether it was necessary to have this extension; and the noble Earl expressed the hope that this would be the last. I share his hope. Let me sum up for the noble Viscount why we are doing this. There are two reasons: first, because of the unanimous recommendation that we should have this extension, and secondly, because we need time for more research and to give more study to the by-law question. I think (and I hope that I carry the noble Viscount with me on this point), that in order to get the best results we should not rush into less satisfactory methods. I believe that by this extension we shall be able to put matters right, although I am sorry that we have had to have it. It would have been nice to have the matter finished now, but I believe that this is the best way of doing it.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the detail and clarity of his reply. I should like to have his assurance on this point, because at present I am not quite clear—namely, whether atomic power station projects are excluded from this extension of time. Are they not legally included within the general restriction under the 1951 Act? Otherwise, I cannot quite understand the noble Lord's reply. Is it quite clear from his reply that, for example, if the river board in the Blackwater area should raise objection to the effluents from the atomic station there, they can do so without going through the procedure laid down in the 1951 Act.

LORD REA

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask whether it also applies to effluents going straight to the sea from such stations as Calder Hall, where there is no river travel between the station and the open sea, and where similar trouble may take place?

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords. I do not think that it applies, but I will check this point because it is important. I do not think that in this case river board authority runs, and therefore it does not apply. It applies, I should like to repeat, only to proceedings in respect of any trade effluent or local authority sewage effluent. If the particular atomic disposal which the noble Viscount has in mind comes within those two heads, then, of course, it would be covered by the extension. If the noble Viscount would let me have the name of any particular stations he has in mind—he mentioned that at Blackwater—I will check the position there; but that is the general principle which governs the matter and I think that it covers his point. Nevertheless, I should like to check and make certain.

On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.