Lords Sitting of 24 January 1974

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

"MORNING STAR" EDITORIALS: AND B.B.C.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noticed the disproportionate amount of publicity given to editorials of the Morning Star and to Communist propaganda generally in the B.B.C.'s "Morning Review" of the papers and whether this practice conforms to the impartiality required by the B.B.C.'s Charter.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is a long-established policy, observed by this Government and by their predecessors, that Ministers do not make judgments on matters of this kind, since the B.B.C. and the I.B.A. are wholly and solely responsible for programme content. I am sure the B.B.C., who have obligations to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality, will take note of my noble friend's views.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that answer—the stock answer I expected—may I ask him whether he realises that, while I am sure we all feel it is necessary for the Morning Star to get coverage by the B.B.C., the daily circulation of the Morning Star is only about 30,000? Does my noble friend further realise that there are newspapers with 50 times, or even more than 50 times, this circulation, which do not get a proportionate coverage from the B.B.C.? Would my noble friend bear that point in mind and do what he thinks best?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I understand from the B.B.C. that the proportion
1570
of time devoted last quarter to the Morning Star was just over 1 per cent. I do not think we should underestimate the common sense of the viewers and listeners. They can form their own judgment of Communist views and motives.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, have not the noble Lord, and Her Majesty's Government, noticed that silly statements tend to suffer a great deal of what they may consider is undue publicity?
LORD DENHAM: If the noble Viscount is referring to silly statements in this particular programme, I am sure the B.B.C. will take note of his views as well as those of my noble friend.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can the noble Viscount be encouraged to sleep a little longer in the morning?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, as the noble Viscount is sitting on the same Bench as the noble Lord, perhaps he can give the encouragement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, my noble friend means the noble Viscount who has Reds under his bed.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that advice could apply to anyone.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what definition of "impartiality" is given in the B.B.C. Charter?
LORD DENHAM: Not without notice, my Lords.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, if the noble Lord is judging the impartiality of the B.B.C., would he notice that last week, when on three days there were opinion polls showing the Conservative Party in front, they were repeated time after time. On Friday, for example, the Evening Standard poll was repeated three times on Radio News. Yet, on Sunday, when the Sunday Times reported that the Labour Party was 3 per cent. in front, there was no reference at all until I 'phoned them up and drew their attention to it?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, although that supplementary from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, I have no doubt

1571
that even so the B.B.C. will take notice of it.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is it not true that good wine needs no bush?

BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS DEFICIT: FOREIGN LOANS
3.10 p.m.
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much they have borrowed from foreign sources to meet the deficit in the balance of payments, and whether they can tabulate the sources of these borrowings.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the Government have themselves undertaken no such overseas borrowing.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but because the Front Bench were talking I could not hear the noble Lord. Would he repeat that Answer?
LORD ABERDARE: Certainly. My Lords, the Government have themselves undertaken no such overseas borrowing.
LORD PARGITER: Would the noble Lord—
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my supplementary? Is the noble Lord telling Britain that we are not borrowing from abroad at all?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am telling Britain that the Government are not borrowing at the moment from abroad. There are others—public corporations, the nationalised industries, and local authorities—which are borrowing; but not the Government.
LORD PARGITER: That was the question I wished to ask. How much have these other bodies borrowed on the advice of the Government?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, between March 6, 1973, and December 31, 1973, nationalised industries and local
1572
authorities have borrowed 2,495 million dollars under the exchange cover scheme.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I knew quite concisely what was implied in the Question, and it was rather unfair to answer the Question in that way. But may I now develop this point by asking what the Government are going to do to try to maintain their position in the famous "snake", in view of the fact that the French are now floating the pound—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: —I mean the franc, my Lords: we shall need a diving bell to save the pound. As the franc is now being floated, does not this make our balance-of-payments problem greater still? What conferences are we still having with the French to try to stabilise the position?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there are many factors in the present situation which require constant attention and study. I do not think that the noble Lord's specific question follows from the Question on the Order Paper. All I would say is that the borrowing by the nationalised industries and the local authorities has brought in a considerable amount of foreign exchange which has helped our balance of payments.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to give percentages for nationalised industries and private industry?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this figure relates to nationalised industries and local authorities, not private industry.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this is another aspect of the mess which we shall have to clear up in the years ahead? Can he say, although the long-term effect is as he stated, what will be the short-term effect on the balance of payments of the servicing of these loans?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the interest on these loans amounts to some 200 million dollars per annum, but one has to think of that in relation to our "invisible" surplus, which in round figures is 2,000 million dollars per annum. So far as the merit of this borrowing is

1573
concerned, of course it enables the nationalised industries and the local authorities to borrow at rates which are less than those at which they would have to borrow if they borrowed from the Treasury.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how the Government propose to meet the deficit in the balance of payments without borrowing in the next two or three years? Are they not bound to go to the International Monetary Fund in order to obtain sufficient funds to cover the deficit to some extent? Furthermore, can he say whether it is possible to rely on the nationalised industries' borrowing from overseas, as they are doing at present in order to counter the balance-of-payments deficit?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord will expect me to pronounce on that particular matter with much authority. I can only say what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said: that the Government would not hesitate to use our sizeable borrowing capacity, if this was judged necessary, to borrow from the I.M.F.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Opposition have always contended that local government and nationalised industries should be allowed to borrow in the open market, wherever it might be? And why are they now complaining?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I cannot think, because the practice in fact started under the Labour Government.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that an analysis of the situation in the Digest of Statistics, Tables 142, 143, on Current and Capital Account, indicates that we are in a very similar position now to the classical problem of 1931, of lending and borrowing on terms which are dangerous to the economy; and this we want somehow rectified?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have given a few figures; and we do not think the situation there is dangerous to the economy. What is dangerous to the economy is the situation that has now arisen with the greatly increased price of oil.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, in order to obtain a balanced view, is it not necessary to have the figure for short-term and long-term capital flows from this country abroad which have to be set off against the other flows which the Minister has mentioned? Has he any figures for them?
LORD ABERDARE: Not without notice, my Lords.

SERVICE INDUSTRIES AND THE E.E.C.
3.17 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that the service industries are a major growth area in the advanced countries of the world, and that the financial services industry is one of the most important of them what they are doing to ensure that the financial services industry will be modern and efficient so that its valuable contribution to the economy of the nation will ensure that entry into the E.E.C. will not result in a bonanza for the city at the expense of industry as is hinted in the Cabinet Office Paper dealing with the Future of London as an International Financial Centre, pages 1–1 and 1–3.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the Report on the Future of London as an International Financial Centre was not a Cabinet Office Paper. It was commissioned by the Central Policy Review Staff, but it reflects only the views of its authors. The Government decided to publish the Report as a contribution to public discussion. Both the Report and the Government are convinced of the importance of the City's contribution to our "invisible" exports, and this is certainly not at the expense of industry.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have the Report in my hand? I know by whom it was prepared. There are references as to why it was prepared, and it is said that it was prepared for presenting to the Cabinet Office. It has written on it,

1575
"The Cabinet Office". Why is the noble Lord trying to slide away from the facts about this matter? May I now, in relation to the Question, ask the Government whether they are aware that the Governor of the Bank of England, in his speech on October 18 at the Lord Mayor's Dinner to the bankers and merchants, spoke about what he considered to be the "over-rapid expansion" of money presentation; namely, what is known as "M3"? Is the noble Lord further aware that in the Cabinet Paper itself the gap between the City and industry was something which the Government wished to eradicate? Will he say—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: That was introductory, my Lords. Here is the question. At least it is more coherent than the half reply I have had up to now. Will the noble Lord therefore please say what is being done to ensure that the resources of the City do not frustrate the honest entrepreneur who wants to invest in British industry rather than to speculate?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am now aware that the noble Lord holds in his hand a copy of this Report. But I can hardly think that he has read the Preface. The Preface says:
"This Report was commissioned by the Central Policy Review Staff";
and it goes on to say:
"As is stated in the terms of reference, it reflects the views of its authors only."
If the noble Lord will accept that, he will apreciate that it is not an official Cabinet Office Paper. Secondly, the Report makes quite clear that the City does a very valuable job in "invisible" exports, and it brings out at one point only that it may be said by some that there is some conflict between the City and industry. But this does not argue this point. It says that the City and industry and the Government should make sure that this assertion is refuted.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that much of the difference between industry and the City lies in the fact that industry cannot get the investment in the mechanisation and new machinery that it needs because of the tendency of the City to
1576
pass large amounts of capital overseas? I will put it as simply as that.
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, I do not accept that.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is it not a happy fact that present conditions have so concentrated the mind of the noble Lord who asked this Question that he pays tribute to the value of the service industries, whereas the Government that he supported introduced S.E.T. to discourage them?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree with me that the expansion of M3, whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and not of sundry personalities in the City?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords.

POWER SUPPLIES AND RESTRICTIONS
3.21 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will quantify the factors which enabled the announcement to be made on January 17, that they could consider the relaxation of power restrictions.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, stocks of coal at power stations were higher than expected because of the mild weather, the settling of the power engineers' dispute and because additional oil had been diverted to power stations at Government request. It is not possible to quantify the individual effect of each of these factors; but the combined effect, together with the savings resulting from the Government's measures, has been that coal stocks at power stations have declined by less than 1 million tons in the last four weeks.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reply, but in trying to follow these matters will

1577
he answer a point which arises immediately out of my Question, which of course follows the one which I put to him last week? Last week I asked the noble Lord whether it is the case that imports of crude oil from Saudi Arabia have been continuing at or above the average for the period January to September, 1973, and if this be the case why could not the C.E.G.B. be given more oil? The noble Lord will remember that he gave me a very long and involved reason as to why they could not be given more oil; two hours later, according to the Press—and I quote from the Daily Telegraph—he announced that
"full electricity supplies are to be restored immediately to the steel industry",
and he added that,
"the oil outlook is considerably brighter because of the increase in Arab output and the special help being given by Saudi Arabia."
Will the noble Lord be good enough to explain the reason for the difference between the assessment that he gave to me and the assessment contained in the report which he gave to the Press?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, there really is no difference. I hope the noble Lord will accept that from me. The amount of crude oil which we imported from the Arab sources in the period November and December was approximately the average that we got between January and September, 1973, but this of course was very much less than the expectation. The expectation was not only greater because this particular quarter is a time of the year when fuel oil is used in greater quantities, but also because there was considerable growth in the economy and more oil was being used.
Subsequently we expect—because it has not yet arrived—to get some extra oil from Saudi Arabia over and above the average of the period January to September, 1973, but the fact still remains that there is a shortage of imports of products of fuel oil, so that the total situation with regard to fuel oil is not as good as it would have been if we could have got those imports. There really is no difference between what I was saying to the Press and what I have told the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the difficulty as I see it is this. When the
1578
noble Lord informed the Press that he had expectations of increased fuel oil from Saudi Arabia, was this something which he learned between the time when he spoke in your Lordships' House and his statement to the Press? What I really want to ask him is whether it was a new factor, because he certainly gave no indication of these further expectations in his Statement to this House.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, in so far as I understood the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, this was irrelevant, because what I thought—and still think—the noble Lord was asking me was why had not the allocation to power stations been increased. But of course any future bigger supplies of oil from Saudi Arabia will not arrive until either next month or March.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is really evading the question. I was trying to get at the reason why we could not increase the amount of power to industry, and if the noble Lord remembers, I was saying that if we made more fuel oil available the Generating Board could produce more electricity. The noble Lord then said that this was not possible, and he has again said that it is not possible. So may I ask him whether he remembers what he said to the Press, and whether he is correctly reported when the Press report that he said that the outlook was considerably brighter because of this increase in Arab oil? If he is correctly reported, then he did not give the full Answer to the Question which I put to him in this House.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sorry, but I am trying to make a distinction to the noble Lord between the future and the present. That oil has not arrived. What I understood the noble Lord to be asking me was why it had not been possible to increase fuel oil supplies to the power stations, and this was long before the question arose of the extra oil from Saudi Arabia.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is surely aware (is he not?) that I also was talking about the future: I was asking him to take action in the future. One and a half hours later the noble Lord said—again according to the Press—that a four-day week for industry "in about seven days from now is on the cards".

1579
Would he not agree that that was a completely different impression from the one he gave to the House?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if that was the impression that the noble Lord got then I am extremely sorry, but it certainly was not my intention and I really must ask the noble Lord to accept that. I was talking to the Press about oil in the future. This extra oil from Saudi Arabia has not yet arrived and cannot yet be taken into consideration in making allocations to power stations. This is really the difference between what I was saying in the House and the fact that I had what I hoped was some fairly good news to announce to the country about the possibilities of extra oil.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he is sure that the 200,000 barrels per day promised by Saudi Arabia will in fact come to this country in addition to the existing supplies by the oil companies?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is up to the Government to see that that is so.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on the wider issue, is the noble Lord in a position to say when a Statement will be made, or when he will be able to make a Statement on the relaxation of power restrictions?
LORD CARRINGTON: Not at the present time, my Lords, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will understand the reasons why I cannot make one this afternoon.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to answer one further question? I asked him last week whether it would not be possible for the C.E.G.B., that is, in the England and Wales power stations, to burn 112 per cent. of the oil which they burnt in January, 1973, if that oil was available. If increasing supplies are coming in, will the noble Lord say whether this additional quantity will be made available to the C.E.G.B.?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is obviously a matter which has still to be decided—the allocation of any future supplies in excess of what one expects. But I must again say to the noble Lord that even so there is a shortage of
1580
fuel oil because of the reduction of imports of products as opposed to crude oil. So I am not entirely satisfied at the present time about the situation with regard to fuel oil as such.

PAY RELATIVITIES
3.29 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Gowrie will make a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. on the Advisory Report of the Pay Board on problems of pay relativities.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will remember that this is the fifth Bill produced by the two Law Commissions under their programme of Statute law revision, and I am quite sure the House will be grateful to both of them for their continuing work in this field. When I moved the Second Reading of the previous Bill in this series on February 6 last year, the noble and learned Lord. Lord Gardiner, expressed surprise that the Law Commissions' previous Bills had not exhausted the possibilities of clearing spent and obsolete matter from the Statute Book. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be even more surprised to find yet another Bill brought before the House so soon, and more surprised again to know there are further Bills still to come.
My Lords, the present Bill provides for the repeal of 55 whole Acts and 331 parts of Acts which are no longer of practical utility. If it becomes law as drafted,

1581
it will bring our grand total of Statutes affected by the whole series to 1,083, made up of 370 whole Acts and 713 parts of Acts. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is an extraordinary total, and, as I have said, it is not the end of the story.
My Lords, your Lordships will see that in the present Bill there are 12 categories of enactments proposed for repeal. These relate respectively to security required from public officers, obsolete taxes, other financial enactments, land acquisition powers, legal proceedings and the legal profession, enactments relating solely to Scotland, transport, ecclesiastical enactments, the improvement of land, the Board of Trade, the category known as "Miscellaneous", and spent repealing enactments. I do not think there is anything in the details of the Bill to which I ought to draw your Lordships' attention particularly in rising to move the Second Reading. Noble Lords will find a detailed explanation of the provisions in the Fifth Report of the Law Commissions, Command Paper 5493. I have been provided, as usual, with extensive notes on the Bill prepared by them, and perhaps I may be able, with luck, to answer any questions put to me about the multifarious provisions, if any of your Lordships are diligent enough to find any of interest. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.35 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, we warmly welcome the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like to join in the tribute made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the Law Commissions for the value of their work in this sphere. It is indeed a striking performance, and I continue to be surprised that they can go on, year after year, finding further Acts to be repealed. I would work out the total myself but the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor stated a figure of some 370 Acts repealed altogether and 713 in part. That means the Law Commissions have specifically examined nearly one-third of all the Acts on the Statute Book. No doubt they have also examined many others as to which they propose no repeal, but it seems to me that sooner or later this process must be likely to draw to a conclusion.
1582
My Lords, while I do not wish to ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor any questions on the actual Acts contained in this Bill, I should just like to put these two questions; if he cannot give us the answer to-day, perhaps he will kindly let me know at his convenience. The first question is whether the Government or the Law Commissions do envisage this process being substantially completed, and if so, how near are we to completion? The second question relates to a fact which I think I have mentioned before, that shortly after leaving Office I inquired how many Public General Acts there had been on the Statute Book when I took Office, and how many there were then. I know when I took Office there were about 3,600, and I had looked to see that in nearly six years we had passed an average of 75 further Acts a year, so the total looked rather like 4,100. I was naturally gratified to be told that there were then 150 fewer Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book than when I took Office. This is entirely due not only to the Law Commissions' Statute Law (Repeals) Bills, but also to their Consolidation Bills. We are, I think, within measureable distance of having a practical and effective Statute Book, which we certainly had not in the past. I warmly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
3.37 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I add a word or two, endorsing the remarks passed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. From a practitioner's point of view, this matter is very important. The amount of work that has been done by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by the Law Commissions is of considerable value. I remember that some years ago I was examining a number of cases relating to hackney carriages. There were many anomalies in the law: as for example, the then, and I believe still existing, provision that every hackney carriage had to carry a bundle of hay—this, of course, included taxis and other vehicles—and that people could only urinate on one side of the carriage. There are a very large number of similar provisions which have become obsolete in a large number of Acts. Secondly, from the point of view of those of us who have actually to deal with the Acts in our daily life, the way in which

1583
this matter is being handled is of considerable value. I hope it will continue to be handled in this way till all such Acts are removed from the Statute Book, although it is not easy to find out how many there are, because it involves a considerable amount of research.
3.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for their brief remarks. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that this process is of value to the practitioner and other people who wish to find out what the law is at any given moment of time. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their expression of appreciation, which I think is widely shared, of the value of the work done by the two Law Commissions.
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has asked me two hard questions. The first was, in effect, for how long is this going on? I personally do not think the Government, as he courteously put it, have an official position on this at all, and I doubt whether the Law Commissions have; I have not asked them. But I have a private opinion, which is that it will be a continuous process. May I give the noble and learned Lord my reason for saying so? If he will look in the Schedule to this Act, there are no fewer than 16 repeals in the Schedule relating to 1966 alone. In the earlier part of the process one was cleaning up bits and pieces from the mediaeval Statutes, which was interesting archeologically and gave rise occasionally to funny observations when the Bills came before the House. I think we shall go on doing this; we shall not stop doing it, because there is a continuous tendency for obsolete matter and lumber to be accumulated as Parliament continues with its business.
I think that the question of Statute law revision and the process of law reform generally is better viewed as a continuous process, as part of the housekeeping of Parliament when it is dealing with its own enactments, and when dealing with rules of law which may have outlived their usefulness or produced deleterious results. So that my own personal view in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is that this is part of a continuous
1584
process. It may be that as we catch up with arrears there will be fewer of these Bills, and indeed I rather hope that there will. I should imagine that the process will go on, and ought to go on, indefinitely.
As regards the actual figure for Acts now on the Statute Book, I think I must ask the noble and learned Lord to allow me to take notice of that question. I will let him know the answer privately, and if he desires a publication of the figure he can put down a Written Question when he knows the result.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.42 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [Control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters etc.]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 137B:
Page 30, line 15, after ("person") insert ("having taken all the care").
The noble and learned Lord said: I do not think I need trouble the Committee for long with this Amendment, because I put the argument in favour of it when the Committee were discussing the Amendment to leave out this paragraph moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. The old argument, if I may repeat it, is that the paragraph (d) which the noble and learned Viscount moved to leave out contains no reference to what is the most important element in the matter with which the paragraph deals; namely, the conduct of the person accused. Surely it is a relevant question, in framing a paragraph for the purpose for which it is clearly designed, that there should be some test by reference to the behaviour of the accused; and there is none. As

1585
I said, I have already put that argument and I think the Committee took it fully into account when we were discussing a previous paragraph. Having again brought it to the notice of Ministers so that they may consider it at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: With the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement—
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord cannot repeat a Statement while we are in Committese. We were anticipating an Amendment by the noble Baroness. If the noble Lord wishes to have us back into the House I am sure he can repeat the Statement.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: I apologise: the Statement was made in the other place a little earlier than I anticipated. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PAY RELATIVITIES
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. My right honourable friend's words were as follows:
"The Report of the Pay Board has been published to-day as a Command Paper. Copies are now available in the Vote Office.
"This Report fulfils the second part of the terms of reference given to the Board last March. Their first Report—on anomalies arising from the standstill—was published last September. The present Report concerns procedures for considering questions of wider pay relativities thrown up by the normal processes of pay determination.
"In the course of their study the Board have received a great amount and variety of evidence, some of it rather late in the day, and the Government are grateful to the Board for proceeding as quickly as possible with
1586
their analysis of the fundamental problems involved.
"The Board have come to the conclusion that there is a need for a procedure, within a counter-inflation policy, for resolving relativity problems in the interests of some groups, while ensuring that others do not thereafter secure the same benefit. The Board do not believe it possible to define self-implementing criteria for the resolution of such problems, such as could be embodied in the Price and Pay Code subject to the approval of Parliament. They therefore outline the following possible procedure.
"First, a means of undertaking a preliminary sifting of cases for further examination. This would be undertaken by the Government with advice from the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. in accordance with guiding principles and procedures to be worked out in consultation with them.
"Secondly, cases so selected would be examined in depth and in public by or on behalf of a standing examining authority, possibly the Pay Board itself.
"Thirdly, the examining body would make a recommendation to the Government, with whom would lie the final decision, for which the Government would of course be answerable directly to this House.
"The Government welcome the report as a valuable basis for consultation with industry.
"The next step is to consult the T.U.C. and C.B.I. on the recommendations, and I have to-day sent copies of the Report to them for their views on the Board's proposals. The Government would like to hold discussions with the T.U.C. and C.B.I. as soon as they are ready."
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would wish me to express our gratitude to the noble Earl for having repeated that statement. As your Lordships will appreciate, the document itself has only just been released and it would be premature to offer any serious comment on it without full consideration. But may I say to the noble Earl, with regard to the astonishing Statement he has made, that there would have

1587
been no difference in that Statement had there been no crisis; had there not been massive unemployment; had there not been short-term working; had there not been the problem of worsening relationships with the miners. None of these things seems to have made the slightest impression on the Government, so far as is revealed by that Statement. May I therefore ask the noble Earl: do not the Government now recognise that there may be full justification for treating the miners as a special case? And in view of the hourly worsening situation, should the Government not announce immediately their willingness to discuss this aspect of the matter, the special case, with the miners at the earliest possible moment?
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I, too, should like briefly from these Benches to welcome this Statement. It will clearly need careful study, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has already said, and we would then wish to make our comments upon it. Even now it is possible, I think, to express the hope that as a result of the publication of this Report it will be possible to regulate some of our industrial affairs in a more orderly way than at present.
As regards its possible application to the coalminers, I am afraid that we on these Benches cannot altogether go along with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. For, as my noble friend Lord Byers maintained in this House last Tuesday, on the basic issue of whether or not the current dispute should be settled within the terms of Stage 3 of the incomes policy approved by Parliament, we on these Benches continue to give our support to the Government. At the next stage we would certainly hope that the procedures set out in this Report will contribute towards a more peaceful future for the coal industry. But ultimately, as my noble friend Lady Seear has said on more than one occasion from these Benches, we hope that the time will come when the Government will feel the need to do no more than set aside some global sum for wage and salary increases and again leave it to the trade unions and employers to resume their normal business of negotiation and themselves determine how this global sum should be distributed among the various industries.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, surely the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, would follow the usual practice.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, yes, I am glad to do so. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for thanking me for repeating the Statement in the usual way. I have of course to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in a slightly more heartfelt manner than I am able to thank Lord Diamond. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that clearly there are no instant solutions to one of the most intracable and challenging problems, the problem of relativity, which will be facing our society for a long time to come, regardless of what Government are in power. As to this question of treating the miners as a special case, the Government have never ceased to do so; they have always regarded the miners as a special case. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already made clear the difficulties of going beyond Stage 3 in present circumstances, and these, I think, should be obvious to all. That said, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lords have received the Report, and I hope that your Lordships will study it very carefully.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the Leader of the Opposition and other noble Lords for having rather beaten the gun just now. I only wanted to say that it seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, had rather jumped to conclusions in saying what he did, having admitted that he had not had time to study this Report. It seems to me that this Report should be welcomed as an initial move in a field of the very greatest importance. Relativities are the crux of most industrial disputes to-day. It is a field to which I would forecast that Parliament will have to give a great deal of attention over the years ahead.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I pursue the Government on the question of treating the miners as a special case? The noble Earl said that the Government had always looked upon the miners as a special case. May I explain to the noble Viscount that of course we all

1589
agree that, so far as this is a Report on relativities, that matter needs careful consideration; and I tried to make that clear. What I am complaining about has nothing to do with the Report but concerns the Government's attitude as expressed in the Statement. We are in a very critical situation indeed. This Report was expected earlier; it might well have come out in December, and had it done so it would have been taken into account by the Government in their considerations and their negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers. Now that it is available, I am asking the noble Earl whether it would not be right for the Government to make it known that they welcome that part of the Report which opens up the possibility of dealing with the miners as a special case. Having regard to the view which the T.U.C., with full authority, have already expressed on that, and to the dangers of allowing the matter to drift further and to worsen, would it not be right for the Government to announce straight away that they are most anxious to resume the negotiations with the miners on the basis of the "special case" treatment provided for in his Report?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I must repeat my hope that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will study the Report most carefully. I think that he may be confusing it slightly with the Report from the Pay Board on anomalies, which did of course deal with special cases. This Report does not deal with special cases but rather with general principles of a kind which are going to be increasingly important to us all in this society, as my noble friend Lord Amory recognised.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if this Report does not deal with special cases, what are paragraphs 60 and 61 about? Do they not give the procedure for dealing with special cases? May I ask the noble Earl what is the time factor involved? How long would it take for an examination in depth and in public of each case and for the consequent recommendation for decision by the Secretary of State? How long would it take, for example, in the case of the mining dispute? Finally, may I ask: is it possible that, within this time factor of two or three weeks, Sir Frank Figgures will take his place, with the Treasury Solicitor,
1590
as one of the Government's principal "getters-off" of grisly hooks?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I do not think that Sir Frank Figgures would recognise himself in that role at all. As to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, he seemed to think that paragraphs 60 and 61 deal with special cases. I must stand on my former answer; that they do not; they deal with the all-important question of procedures for dealing with special cases.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has the advantage over most of us of having seen the Report. I think we should all have been content to wait and study the Report had it not been for the exigencies of the situation concerning the miners. May I ask the noble Earl, whether there are any criteria in the Report which would help in dealing with a situation like the miners? And if there are such criteria within the Report, are they going to be used in the immediate future, maybe before the Report is studied and debated in this House?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, before answering that question, may I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because I did not deal with his second question about how long an examination would take. My right honourable friend has made it clear that he has sent a copy of the Report immediately to the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., and he is anxious that they should have discussions on this as quickly as possible. As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, it seems to us to be important to get the right kind of procedures—and I recognise the urgency here—for dealing with problems about which there is very widespread disagreement. I repeat that we recognise the urgency, and this is what we want to get the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. talking about quickly.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, it was not procedures that I was talking about but criteria as to what methods would be used in dealing with this matter and what sort of arguments would be accepted by the Government which have not been accepted up to now? If they are not going to be accepted so far as the miners' case is concerned,

1591
with all the problems that we have at the moment, there is little likelihood that the Report will be of any great value in the future to any of the unions.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, it may reassure the noble Lord a little that the Pay Board have made it clear that they would like cases selected for study to be examined in depth and in public, so that there would be no question of closed doors here.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, that does not answer the question. Can the noble Earl tell me, yes or no, are there any criteria in this particular Report which would give some heart to this side of the House in supposing that the Report will help in settling either the miners' dispute or any similar disputes in the future?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I think I answered the question. It would surely be impossible that a Report dealing with the general principles for investigating a large and intractable social problem would be used for a particular case. The Report specifically rules out—as the noble Earl will see if he will look at paragraph 44—dealing with special cases, particularly at a time of crisis.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, if that is so, is it not a fact that it is the first Report of this kind—and there have been a number over the past five or six years—which has no criteria of the character I am asking about?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, would it not be best if we were all put on equal terms and given a chance to read this Report, and then debated it afterwards?
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I say, in answer to that, that I am quite willing to wait to read the Report, but I am so concerned about the existing situation that I am seeking some clue as to whether there is anything in it that may help us.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I take very seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, says, and of course we want to read the Report, and no doubt debate it in due course, after we have fully acquainted ourselves with the detailed
1592
proposals in it. But we are dealing to-day with a very difficult situation in relation to which reliance on this Report may be of extreme help to the country as a whole, to our industry, to our employment and to our balance of payments. I think, therefore, we must pursue the Government as to why they are not turning their minds, not to clutching at a straw, but to making use of a very valuable recommendation, in order possibly to help get the country out of its difficulties.
Is it not the case that paragraph 61 refers precisely to the question of self-implementing criteria and recommends certain procedures? Does not paragraph 61 refer to a recommendation by the examining body to the Secretary of State on the special treatment required, if any, and then for the Secretary of State to take the decision which he could already take, under the existing anti-inflation Act, without waiting for new legislation to vary the Code? Is it not the case, therefore, that the Government could now, if they wanted, make known to the miners that they are impressed by the views of this Report and would wish to negotiate with them further, taking into account the possibility of their being given special treatment as recommended in this Report?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I must rest on this statement: that the Government have welcomed the Report; that the Report deals with procedures and principles rather than with special cases; that the Government are anxious for discussions to start as to ways in which procedures and criteria should be considered and implemented, and are anxious that this should be done very quickly.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD) moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 30, line 24, leave out ("such effluent as is mentioned in") and insert ("trade or sewage effluent discharged as mentioned in paragraph (a) of").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 138. As we have already seen, Clause 23 deals with the general offence of water pollution, but discharges of trade and sewage effluent are controlled by a consent procedure, and there is a separate offence under Clause 24 of discharging without consent or of breaking the conditions. This is a distinction which I have already drawn in dealing with an Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Clause 23(2)(f) is intended to exclude from offences under Clause 23 an act which can be penalised under Clause 24. Otherwise an offender would be open to prosecution for two offences—pollution and disregarding of the consent provisions—for a single act. As it is drafted at the moment, Clause 23(2)(f) is too wide. The Amendment modifies the exclusions from the Clause 23 offence so that they correspond precisely with the description in Clause 24 of the discharges which require consent under that clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.4 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 138A:
Page 30, line 31, leave out ("an abandoned mine") and insert ("a mine abandoned prior to the coming into force of this part of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. First of all, I should like to know from the Minister what is the definition of "an abandoned mine". It is not including in the definition clause. We had a discussion yesterday about abandoned scrap. I am not sure how familiar the noble Lord is with mining areas. He may be aware that there are mines which are no longer worked, but from which nevertheless water still has to be pumped very often in order to protect workings which are still being operated. It would be helpful to know exactly what is meant in the first place by "an abandoned mine".
Your Lordships will have gathered from what I said at our last Sitting that I am very concerned about this question of dumping in mines because the material which is dumped in a mine is normally toxic. People would not take the trouble to put it into a mine unless there were
1594
something wrong with it. As a rule it is not ordinary refuse. I know this does not apply to quarries in country areas which are often made the disposal point for prams, bedsteads and the like, but that does not apply to a mine where one has to undertake an expensive operation in order to deposit waste there. Therefore, these mines are apt to be used by one or other of the large companies in this country who specialise in the disposal of toxic waste. It is because of this that we are particularly concerned to know exactly what is the situation about abandoned mines.
My Amendment is a moderate one. It is simply suggesting that exemptions under this clause should be afforded only to mines which have already been abandoned before this Part of the Act comes into effect. My first inclination was to knock them out completely. I can see that that might lead to practical difficulties. Therefore, I tried to put down what I felt would be a sensible and practical compromise.
If one goes further in the Bill and looks at Clauses 39 and 42, both of these, of course, refer to abandoned mines. Clause 42 simply allows a water authority to carry out studies and estimates to ascertain what problems relating to the pollution of relevant waters might arise or have arisen in consequence of the abandonment of any mine in its area. I think there is an Amendment coming which will slightly widen that. The water authority can also try to compute what the cost of taking appropriate steps might be. That is fine so far as it goes, but we assume that in order to take effective action after those studies one has to turn back to Clause 39 which empowers a water authority to carry out various operations in order to prevent matter from entering relevant waters or, as the case may be, for the purpose of removing and disposing of the matter or remedying or mitigating any pollution. Further down in that clause it is made plain that a water authority cannot recover costs in respect of operations when they are dealing with water from an abandoned mine. This may simply be a matter of finance as between the authorities and the National Coal Board. There are a few private mines, of course, still remaining in the country.
What we really want to know is on two fronts: are these peculiar provisions

1595
exempting abandoned mines from various clauses of the Bill primarily a matter of finance as between water authorities and the N.C.B.; or are there reasons more directly concerned with the protection of the environment and the control of pollution? On the pollution side, I am advised that there can be very serious problems. As I tried to indicate on another Amendment yesterday, where toxic substances are placed in a mine, I am told that too little is known of the possible effects of some of the substances which may be disposed in these mines. I am told that there are phenolic compounds, some of which are harmless and others of which are exceedingly toxic and difficult to analyse. As we said yesterday, they can leach into underground waters, and may have really very serious effects and might well come into waters which could be flowing into waters being used for public supply.
What I am really trying to find out is whether this exemption for these abandoned mines really makes sense in the totality of public policy. If you allow the toxic waste to be put into them, apparently without consents being needed, then as I understand it under Clause 39 the water authority could take action after the event, which would obviously be very expensive. They could not recover the cost from the N.C.B. That might make them slightly reluctant unless they were sure that something was wrong. Therefore, we feel that we need to have from the Government a comprehensive and clear account of just why it is they are proposing to deal in this way with abandoned mines. I am told that in some countries—in particular the United States and Sweden—they have set up incinerators to deal with the kind of toxic waste that we are proposing to dump in mines. This is an expensive matter. I am told that a plant of this kind may cost up to about £2 million. It is not cheap. On the other hand, if the substances we are dealing with may be so dangerous and poisonous, might it not be better to spend £2 million and burn them to make sure, rather than put them into mines where the poison could leach into underground water and then get into the general water system?
It is for those reasons that we felt that at the very least we should ask the
1596
Government to give us a full explanation of their policy on abandoned mines. We have put down a very moderate Amendment indeed, trying to make sure, whatever may have happened in the past, that we take a more positive attitude towards abandoned mines when this Bill comes into effect. I beg to move.
4.12 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Baroness—particularly with the benefit of her experience and insight—for giving us an opportunity to discuss this problem caused by mines, and particularly abandoned mines. In answer to her first point, the position at the moment is that an abandoned mine is not defined within the Act. We can certainly consider whether it could be or should be, but perhaps after I have set out some of the Government's thinking over this whole question. It is primarily a problem and a matter of finding out what to do, and how to do it in the field of water pollution in respect of the problems created by abandoned mines. I do not want to go back, and I do not suppose the Committee do just yet, to Part I. However, I certainly confirm that there is no question of being able to deposit waste generally without a licence, and certainly not noxious waste, in all abandoned mines. Nevertheless, as I think the debate showed earlier on Part I, in certain circumstances where there is no danger of polluting underground water, mines may be a convenient place for depositing waste or even noxious waste, but under proper safeguards, consents, and licences.
Perhaps we can now turn in more general terms to the question of abandoned mines and water pollution. Often the water pumped out of working mines is relatively innocuous but, as the noble Baroness pointed out, when the mine is abandoned and not working the water leaches into the surrounding ground which may contain a number of polluting minerals, and it then becomes polluting itself. Hitherto there has been an exemption in respect of working mines. One of the forward steps of this Bill is that that exemption is repealed, and discharges from working mines will need the consent of the water authority in respect of their effluent.
The problem with an abandoned mine is different and more difficult. It has this

1597
factor that I have just mentioned, that the water in it becomes not only stagnant but polluted, and the problem is how to know when to eliminate unacceptable pollution from this rather difficult source. As the noble Baroness will know, one method is to continue pumping the water so that its level never rises and to keep it on the move; but she will realise that that would be very expensive, probably unacceptably expensive, even if it did not entail maintaining the underground passages in a safe condition for men to go down and maintain the pumps. Another possibility is the treatment of water after it flows out of the abandoned workings in its polluted state, but that too is likely to be very expensive. All aspects of these problems still require careful study, and Clause 42—which I think is of more significance than the noble Baroness gave it credit for—is the main clause under which this can be done. It is most important that it should be done. Until it has been done, it will be difficult to make any further provisions by legislation. This is perhaps one of the reasons why it is not very easy to give a precise definition of what is an abandoned mine.
Meanwhile, the Amendment itself, which would remove any exemption for water from a mine abandoned after Part II of the Bill comes into force, seems to be eminently desirable and reasonable until the consequences of the Amendment are weighed. I do not believe that they can be weighed until the studies that have been called for, and are provided for under Clause 42, have been undertaken and have got us some way further forward. Leaving aside for the moment the nationalised coal industry, the mining undertaking which abandons a mine may sell it, let it, or even go into liquidation, and in that case the person permitting the water from the mine to flow into the stream may be a sheep farmer who has taken over the surface land for grazing sheep. Surely it would not be reasonable to penalise him for not stopping or treating an overflow from that abandoned mine, which at the moment no-one else knows how to treat and stop. In the case of the N.C.B., which at least can be assumed to know the situation that exists underground, and is a body which will continue to exist—it is not likely to go into liquidation—the cost of stopping the overflow may be totally unreasonable in
1598
both money and manpower terms. This is a problem that has been worrying river authorities for some years, and hitherto they have not had sufficient powers to grapple with it. In the first case, those are the powers now conferred for the first time by Clause 42.
LORD MOLSON: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting here? I was just looking at Clause 42. It gives the water authority power to carry out studies. Is there some other provision in the Bill which gives them power to take action in connection with the study after they have made it?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, certainly, and I was coming to that. That is why I used the phrase "in the first case", because before you take the action you have to study the problem and decide what action to take. That is what is provided for in Clause 42. If my noble friend will bear with me for a moment, I will come on to the scope for taking action. I think that he and the Committee will recognise that because this has not been grappled with in the sense of being studied and looked into, this is the first thing that has to be done, and here is the power available for the first time to do it.
As my noble friend says, this will not enable water authorities in practical terms to apply or enforce whatever solution, or solutions, they find from their studies to be necessary. The problems themselves may in some instances—and all the indications point this way—be almost intractable. Until we know what needs to be done, what its cost would be, and what benefits would flow from devoting large resources to this purpose, I do not think that it is practicable to modify this exemption in the way that the noble Baroness and the Committee would otherwise like to do—attractive though the argument may be that those who have profited from extracting the minerals should pay for protecting water from the consequences of their stopping mining.
I should like to make two positive points to the Committee. We are taking substantial and significant steps in this Bill—bringing discharges from working mines under control, and enabling the problems of discharges from abandoned mines to be investigated under the powers

1599
conferred by Clause 42. However, we go further than that. Powers are provided under Clause 39 to enable a water authority to apply a solution, partial or otherwise, before it is decided whether a problem should be dealt with nationally, and whether further legislation is needed. Those powers will be available to deal with a problem before legislation is framed in the light of the studies conducted under Clause 42.
For the reasons I have already given, I do not think it would be right for the cost of such a solution to be recoverable from a person, such as a sheep farmer, who happened to be occupying land above an abandoned mine, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her Amendment. In another Amendment which we shall propose for other reasons, we intend to make the distinction clear. The essential point is that under the Bill a water authority is placed in a position where it can look into a problem, grapple with it for the first time and consider what can be devised and put into force, and it will have the necessary power to take action under Clause 39. When studies have been carried forward under Clause 42, we shall then be in a position to frame further legislation and that may be the time to give a precise definition to the term "abandoned mine".
BARONESS WHITE: I congratulate the noble Lord on having made the best of his brief. He cannot expect us to be really content with what he has said, although I fully recognise that this is not an easy situation. What Clause 42 states is that water authorities shall have power to carry out studies for the purpose of ascertaining what might be done about these problems. The noble Lord has not said a word about any Government finance for what is a very difficult problem, largely inherited from the past. If these studies are to be left to the water authorities which are only just being formed—I do not wish it to be thought that I am against their having these powers—there should be much more positive action forthcoming from the Government. I do not say that such action should be included in legislation, but in dealing with a very real problem which faces those of us who come from mining areas the Government should indicate
1600
that research funds will be available from some central source.
The water authorities must pay their way and what is to happen in this respect may have some influence on some of their other activities under this Bill. A water authority which is only now being formed, and which has to face all sorts of problems, such as reorganisation, may not be in a position to formulate and carry out a complex research programme, without some assurance of assistance from central Government funds. Water authorities are bound to be a little hesitant about embarking on expensive projects when they are not quite sure how their finances will work out. We may come back to this point when we discuss charges for the discharge of effluent. I find it very difficult to accept a situation where not only mines which are already abandoned, but mines which may be abandoned in the future, will have inadequate supervision until studies have been made, which may take many years and may be followed by legislation.
I should like to take further advice on this matter. At this moment I am not prepared to press this Amendment; but I should like to give the noble Lord an opportunity to say how far the question of assistance for research under Clause 42 has been considered by the Government. The time factor will be a very lengthy one, and if, as seems probable, we depend more and more on coal and have greater activity in the coalfields, we shall want to know what will be done. I am not so much concerned about the sheep farmer on some tiny private drift mine, because it would not take a great deal of ingenuity to exempt very small enterprises of that sort from any provisions. But I wonder whether we can be told more about the research side.
LORD SANDFORD: I think I shall be able to give the noble Baroness a much better answer after I have taken further advice and have consulted the Water Act. Undoubtedly, the powers are there, As to whether they are deficient in any respect, I should prefer to answer that after I have studied the point. I shall certainly look into it and will write to the noble Baroness between now and the next stage, and will discuss it with her if she thinks that is necessary.
BARONESS WHITE: I am not doubting the powers; I am doubting the cash. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
4.27 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 30, line 40, after ("(b)") insert ("having regard to all relevant factors including the protection of the environment")
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 23 states that a person is not guilty of an offence by reason of depositing solid refuse in a stream if,
"(b) no other site for the deposit is reason, ably practicable".
I find it difficult to know what would happen if there were more than one site which was reasonably practicable. For example, I can envisage two sites both of them causing some pollution. It would be slightly cheaper to deposit on one site although that would spoil the environment, and the other would be much kinder to the environment. I feel that "reasonably practicable" is difficult to interpret in the case of more than one site, so I suggest adding the words,
"having regard to all relevant factors including the protection of the environment".
I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: It is quite true that solid wastes present special problems of disposal, because their bulk and the difficulty and cost of transporting them make it necessary, for practical and economic reasons, for them to be deposited near to where they are produced. If the waste fell or was carried into a stream and by impeding its flow aggravated pollution due to other causes, the person depositing it would be guilty—apart from Clause 23(3)—of an offence under Clause 23(1)(b).
To secure the protection of Clause 23(3), three conditions have to be satisfied: first, the waste must be deposited with the consent of the water authority; secondly, "no other site … is reasonably practicable"; and thirdly, the person depositing the waste must take all reasonably practicable steps to prevent it from entering the stream. It is the second of those conditions which my noble friend's Amendment would modify. This condition would have to be interpreted by
1602
the courts, and the Committee might agree with my view that it would give them a difficult jurisdiction. Indeed, it is difficult to see how protection of the environment could be a relevant factor in determining whether another site was reasonably practicable. The only way in which it might affect practicability would be if the use of the other site required the consent or approval of some ether agency responsible for the protection of some aspect of the environment, such as the water authority under paragraph (a) of the subsection, or the local planning authority if planning permission was required. If consent or approval could not be obtained, then that site would obviously not be practicable. I think, too, that to require courts of law to apply their minds to the environmental issues in parallel with the regulatory agencies, such as the water authority and planning authorities, might lead to confusion.
I have sympathy with my noble friend: the effect of waste tips on the environment generally should have a proper influence of their siting, but I do not think it is appropriate to attempt to secure that by making a requirement in a provision conferring protection against prosecution for aggravating water pollution. As I say, I have sympathy with the aims of my noble friend but they are better secured, it seems to me, by means of planning control. I hope I have been able to satisfy him that this can be done in that way but that it would only add confusion to try to do it in the way he proposes.
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I must admit that I am not very happy about that reply. This is another attempt, as it seems to me, to take away the jurisdiction of the court in the consideration of matters which are, I would have thought, relevant for the court's consideration. The noble Lord who has replied has really not dealt with the point made by the mover of the Amendment. Let me put this to him. Suppose you have two areas, in respect to both of which planning consent can be given for the deposit of solid waste materials. When it comes to the court, as the Bill now stands the court has to consider only questions of reasonable practicability. That must mean, in its context,

1603
cash considerations. The court, in deciding this matter, cannot have regard to the environment at all. If the court is satisfied that it is reasonably practicable to put it on one particular site, although that is very damaging to the environment, the defence is established. I must say that I would have thought there was something to be said for letting the court have some regard to environmental considerations.
I myself do not think it suffices to say, "They can establish the defence only if it is financially reasonably practicable, and we must leave it to the court to say that, anyhow, they cannot establish that defence at all because planning consent is refused"—because planning consent would be a condition, as I see it now, of this defence ever succeeding. But that deals only with what I might call the single issue. In the instance of planning consent being given over a wide area, one part of which is damaging to the environment if deposit is made on it and the other part of which is not, then if it is reasonably practicable to discharge on that part of which it would be damaging, this defence would succeed. I am not sure that the criterion as laid down in the Bill is really sufficient, and, personally, I would have much more confidence in leaving this kind of consideration to the court should that situation arise.
LORD SANDFORD: Does the noble and learned Viscount consider then that there is not as much substance as I have been advised there would be in the assertion of the confusion that would be caused by having three separate jurisdictions running in parallel?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think the powers of a water authority or the powers of planning authorities to give consent are comparable to the jurisdiction of the courts in a matter of criminal law.
LORD SANDFORD: In that case, I wonder whether I could make this suggestion. It so happens that we have the Stevens Committee of Inquiry into Planning Control over Mineral Working in session at the moment, and I would suggest to my noble friend that we ask them to consider what has been said in the discussion of this particular Amendment. Then,
1604
in the light of what they say either I will write to the noble Lord or he can put his Amendment down again at the next stage, when we can take another look at it with the benefit of their views.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his assistance. As he said so much better than I could, this Bill as it stands, does not deal with the position where there are two sites. But in view of what my noble friend has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.35 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 139C:
Page 31, line 4, after ("waters") insert ("and the regulation shall include the requirement that no premises shall be used for the storage of such substances without the permission of the Local Planning Authority and the Water Authority which permission may be given subject to such conditions as shall be agreed between such Authorities.").
The noble Lord said: This matter deals with accommodation. At the present time it is permissible, I understand, to store toxic chemicals—for example, agricultural chemicals—in any warehouse or shed. There was recently an instance at Southwell Lock, Nottinghamshire, where a general warehouse caught fire. There were in it varying amounts of some 200 different chemicals, all toxic to different degrees, and these entered a stream and sewage works simply because it was an old building and nobody knew where the drains were. It took three and a half days for the local authority to stop the discharge. The building was clearly unsuitable for the storage of chemicals at all, and this Amendment, the wording of which may be faulty, is moved with the idea that there should be much tighter control over the buildings in which chemicals are stored. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, because in my belief the real danger to our waters is not so much the pollution that we have all been thinking about, but the accidental pollution which can so easily happen in a very crowded country where waters are flowing all over the place through all the other procedures of our lives, with storage

1605
places, traffic carrying dangerous liquids—all sorts of things happening all round the place near our waterways. The real danger to life, in my opinion, is through some accident like the fire, about which the noble Lord talked, and which I remember reading about, where something happens quite unexpectedly and dangerous substances thereby become released into our water system. This, I believe, is something we really should tighten up on, to make sure that this sort of accident never happens, or at least very seldom. So I most strongly support this Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us an opportunity to discuss this aspect. In an extreme case such as he has mentioned, a provision requiring special safeguards may clearly be justified; but it is also true that large concentrations of substances which in small quantities would have little harmful effect on water may also pose serious threats. I think that perhaps it may be better to deal with the kind of problem that my noble friend apprehends in a rather different way. First of all, Clause 23(4) itself is an entirely novel provision in this sort of legislation, and that will go quite a long way to help.
The intention is to establish machinery for receiving and assessing reports of all incidents however caused which have given rise or which, apart from some fortunate accident, may have given rise to significant pollution (they can arise in the way in which they did here, from high concentrations of otherwise not particularly harmful substances); then to consider how best such incidents may be prevented in future by precautions undertaken by people having custody of the polluting substances or potentially polluting substances; to weigh up the costs and benefits of such precautions and to consult the water authorities and the representative associations about the need for regulations to make the precautions obligatory. Of course every attempt will be made to ensure that there is no overlapping with other provisions for the safe use and safe keeping of particular substances.
Because information of the kind to be collected about stores of the more harmful substances under the proposed legislation to give effect to the recommendations
1606
of the Robens Committee on Safety at Work will be directly relevant in many instances to the sort of problem to which the Amendment is directed, the Government intend the legislation to authorise the disclosure of such information to an authorised officer of the relevant water authority for the purposes of the discharge of the water authority's functions. Even without regulations, knowing where dangerous substances are stored in the vicinity of vulnerable water puts the water authority in a position to alert the occupier to the risks of water pollution and to the possible penalties, and to discuss ways and means of safeguarding against it. In the event of the owner or occupier not being prepared in a high risk case to take the precautions necessary, it will of course be open to the water authority to ask for regulations under Clause 23(5), the subsection to which we are just coming, which would give them the sort of control that the Amendment would provide. In a case where danger seems imminent, the provisions of Clause 39, to which we have already referred more than once, would apply and could be called in aid.
What I am saying is that the Bill gives the water authorities an armoury of powers, which the river authorities do not have at present, to deal with this sort of situation; and while we have sympathy with the proposals in the Amendments in extreme cases of the kind described, we do not think that it would be practicable, or that it is necessary, to supplement the existing powers in that way over a wide field. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances that the kind of situation he has in mind could be met in a whole variety of different ways and that they will be adequate.
LORD MOLSON: Will my noble friend deal with a point which I do not think he has covered? I wholly accept that the powers in the Bill are adequate where the water authority know of the existence of these toxic substances. What I think important about the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Craigton is that it makes sure that the water authority will have information about the storage of these things. Without something like this Amendment I cannot see that there is any reason to suppose that the water authority will be warned about the existence of things of this nature.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I mentioned that we already have in mind to collect information about stores of these harmful substances and to provide legislation for that purpose in the course of giving effect to the recommendations of the Robens Committee. Because we do not want to duplicate action, I am inviting the Committee to accept that rather than this Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: If I may, I would say about this what I felt about my noble friend's reference to Clause 39. It seems to me unsatisfactory that, when we are attempting to legislate for the whole of this problem, certain aspects of it are to be left for subsequent legislation. My noble friend will be aware how extraordinarily difficult it is to find Parliamentary time for such legislation, especially when a large and comprehensive measure has been passed. There will be great difficulty in finding time for some amending measure. I should have thought that in both these cases there was ample justification for providing quite fully in this Bill to cover eventualities which may be discovered only after further research has taken place.
BARONESS WHITE: I was wondering whether the noble Lord was entirely satisfied that there should be no reference anywhere to local planning authorities. In some instances buildings will be erected for the purpose, one assumes, of storing such substances. I am not clear that the water authority would be in a position, even under regulations made under this Bill, to direct the planning or the building as opposed to something to do with the pipes or the pumps. I am told, for example, that in certain circumstances there is, not a bonded warehouse, but a bunded warehouse, which I see as a sort of medieval castle with a moat, so that if there should be any spillage it would be contained and not overflow into a nearby stream or other watercourse.
I have great sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. But it is the noble Lord's Amendment, and it is for him to decide whether to press it. Again I sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. If we are to wait, as one understands from certain Press "leaks", for Part IV of this Bill for legislation
1608
on Robens, it puts us in a very difficult position. We do not know. We are supposed to be dealing with the control of pollution by this Bill. It may be very difficult for us, if we are told, "Ah, yes, but this is going to be perfectly all right because, of course, we shall be dealing with it under subsequent legislation"—which is unspecified. That is not the way in which Parliament prefers to carry out its duties.
LORD SANDFORD: I have sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and by my noble friend Lord Molson. But I think they will agree that it is a mistake to have duplicate legislation dealing with the same point. It is not as though legislation from the recommendations of the Robens Committee was at some far off distant point; it is something which is in preparation, and it bites directly and immediately on this matter. It is under those terms that legislation is intended to provide for the disclosure of necessary information to an authorised officer of the relevant water authority, so it is intended to provide specifically for this very problem.
BARONESS WHITE: If the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will excuse me, may I ask whether he would be empowered to pass this information to the local planning authority so that they would know what they were planning for?
LORD SANDFORD: I would prefer not to answer that question without advice. The disclosure of the information, or the duty to disclose information, to an authorised officer of the relevant water authority is for the purpose of discharging the water authority's function, not for the purposes of the planning authority's function. I suppose—but I should like to take advice on this before committing myself firmly—that in so far as it is necessary for the planning authorities to know about these things (and obviously it is necessary; the planning authority will not give permission, for example, for an explosive factory to be put up without knowing what is going on inside it) the authority for that sort of disclosure would presumably be under a slightly different clause or subsection. I am not sufficiently familiar with the stage of the legislation under Robens to be able to answer directly.
BARONESS WHITE: That I can fully appreciate. I am sorry to burden the Minister, or the Department, with so much correspondence, but I should like to know what are the safeguards in these circumstances and how the planning authorities obtain adequate information in such a situation. So could we please have a letter?
LORD SANDFORD: I am not in the least reluctant to correspond with the noble Baroness on a whole lot of problems. It appears to be rather an exceptional amount of correspondence, but we are dealing with one of the largest Bills that we have ever dealt with as the first House. I think it right that we should be having all these considerations, and I am not averse to that in the least.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. I quite understand the importance of not having duplicate sets of legislation on this subject, but there have been several occasions in the past when we have legislated on a small matter, only to have a larger and more thorough Bill come before the House later and the earlier Act then being repealed. Is there any harm in putting this in the Bill now, bringing it into law and using it until the subsequent legislation which the noble Lord hopes to see is placed on the Statute Book? Why should not that legislation then repeal this section?
LORD SANDFORD: There is some force in that argument, but it is reduced to some extent because we are not totally without powers here; there are powers now in Clause 23(5) and in Clause 39. They are not as comprehensive or wide-ranging in their effect as will be the case when legislation in pursuit of the recommendations of the Robens Committee is in force, but there are powers given to water authorities in the Bill as it stands.
LORD CRAIGTON: I have listened with great care to what the Minister has said and I am grateful to the noble member of the Committee who supported me. I do not really like the Minister's reply. He said that authorised officers of the authority would be told what was happening, but I am not sure whether they would have powers to do anything about it, if they so wished. My noble friend referred me to subsection (5), which seems
1610
to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut—to require the Secretary of State to make regulations to restrict the carrying on in a particular area of certain activities. I am not sure whether this refers to storing in a building or not. Having said that, I should like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the assumption that I may return to the charge at some other time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.54 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 139A:
Page 31, line 8, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: As I have already advised the Minister, there is nothing particularly sinister in this Amendment: it is put down purely for enlightenment. I think we should be informed under this subsection what kind of criteria will guide the Secretary of State in designating any special area. We have had some slight indication in our immediately preceding discussion as to certain circumstances, but the position is pretty obscure as the Bill stands. I feel that it might be helpful if we could be told what circumstances are envisaged as leading to legislation.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him to deal with this question? Is this power to prohibit limited to a prohibition of future activities, or can the Secretary of State, under this provision, prohibit the doing of something for which planning permission has been granted and which is already being done? If the latter is the case, will there be prohibition without payment of compensation?
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to be able to respond to this inquiry. It is an important subsection and I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I deal with it at some length. It is a new strengthening provision, both in detail and in principle, and there has been no corresponding preventive measure for the protection of waters generally hitherto. Because the provision is new and because it may involve interference with activities which have gone on for some years (and I am already answering the point made by the noble and learned Viscount), without apparently causing any harm, the provision will be surrounded by an unusual

1611
number of safeguards for the private interests that might be affected.
It is expected that the first step will be taken by any water authority which sees a need to take exceptional measures to protect water in an area where it is particularly vulnerable. This might, for example, be land where fissured chalk is bare on the surface and an aquifer beneath it would be particularly vulnerable to accidental spillages of poisonous or polluting substances, or even to the discharge effluent from septic tanks. The water authority might then think it desirable to be able to require special safeguards in a limited area—perhaps impervious floors and walls for buildings storing seriously polluting substances, so that spillages are contained until they can be safely dealt with (the noble Baroness' "bond" would come in there), and connection of house drains to the public sewer or the provision of water-tight cesspools, regularly emptied.
The water authority will be expected to show that there is a prima facie case for designating the area. If they show such a case, the Secretary of State must, before making regulations, advertise them, consider any objections and, unless the objections are withdrawn, hold a public local inquiry. This comes in Clause 92(3):
"(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before he makes any regulations in pursuance of Section 23(5) of this Act…".
If in the light of the public inquiry the Secretary of State decided that regulations should be made, they would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in either House. If the regulations came into force, their administration would rest with the water authority but there would be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if consent was unreasonably refused for the prescribed activities or the conditions attached to the consent were unreasonable. Pending the outcome of the appeal, the applicant would be deemed to have unconditional consent—though in another Amendment the noble Baroness seeks to remove this provision. This is really as far as I can go in answering the question of the noble Baroness.
My right honourable friend has no firm proposals for the designation of particular areas, or for the prescription of particular
1612
activities at this stage. Many of the potential restrictions are of a kind which a responsible person or body would be likely to observe in any case. For example, the location near to important sources of raw water for public water supply of works using or storing substances which could cause serious risks to health, and perhaps life itself, if there were an accidental and unobserved spillage or discharge, might justify a prohibition of such activity in the area unless stringent conditions to safeguard against such risks were observed. We do not expect that extensive use will be made of this provision, or that large areas of land or numerous activities will be brought under consent control by water authorities. Whatever is done will be subject to the full range of safeguards, which I think people will recognise as amounting to quite a considerable battery. But we think that there should be means, where the need justifies them, of securing the necessary protection of water.
At present preventive measures are inadequate. The only provision of this kind in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts is extremely difficult to use and is generally regarded by river authorities as ineffective. Local planning authorities have been co-operative in consulting river authorities before giving planning decisions about proposed development which carried particular risks for water pollution; but the system of controls under the Planning Acts is not continuing protection of water, and it is in any case more appropriate that restrictions imposed for that purpose should be based on the specific legislation on water pollution control, and directly administered by water authorities.
While, therefore, the Government recognise that there may be some aversion to giving water authorities controls over activities which may only indirectly bear on the protection of water, they believe that more and more, as the quantity and complexity of the potential pollutants increase, it will be necessary to look for ways of forestalling their effects on water. This provision is a first step in that direction; and while superficially it may seem bold and even, to some, extreme, I am sure that it is necessary and with the safeguards will be used both sparingly and with caution.

1613
We have already discussed, in connection with Clause 23(2)(c), the unusual position of farmers, in that the seemingly most innocent activities in the ordinary course of farming may in unusual circumstances cause pollution. Almost alone, their industry requires as good practice the application to the soil of various substances which, if they get into water in high concentrations, may constitute unacceptable pollution. In addition, of course, agriculture is the most "land-intensive" industry, occupying far more of the land surface of the country than any other. It is not surprising therefore that some agricultural interests see farmers as particularly vulnerable to the controls which might be imposed under subsection (5) of Clause 23. While we certainly did not have agriculture primarily in mind, it would be idle to pretend that no farmer could ever be affected by the provision.
In view, therefore, of the peculiar nature of the industry in this context, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture have agreed that water authorities should be expected, even before they ask for a designation order which would affect agricultural practice locally, to consult the Ministry of Agriculture informally about any water pollution problems arising in connection with agriculture to see whether there is any simple and acceptable solution. If an order still seemed necessary to the water authority, the Minister of Agriculture would nominate an agricultural assessor for the public local inquiry before a decision was taken to make one, and for any inquiry into an appeal against refusal of consent, or consent conditions, after an order had been made; and my right honourable friends would confer before decisions were taken following such inquiries. They would expect as a result that no restrictions would be imposed unless there was compelling evidence for the need for them to avoid unacceptable pollution of water.
In that long explanation I have answered the noble and learned Lord in respect of the first part of his question, because this certainly bears on activities which have been going on for some time and it is not, in the light of this, intended to provide a code of compensation.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not object to this power being taken provided
1614
it is subject to proper safeguards. I do not object to a power being taken to prohibit the future use of land or buildings which are likely to have this consequence. But when you say that there will be power to stop people doing that which they are now legitimately entitled to do under planning permission, and stop people carrying on agricultural practices which they are perfectly entitled to do now, that may, in exceptional cases, be justified. The Minister indicated, I thought, that those cases were likely to be few and there would be a full inquiry before it was done, and so on.
But that does not suffice. If you are going to stop people from doing what they are perfectly entitled to do legitimately and are doing now, and compel them to stop an activity of that sort, you may inflict great loss upon them. I am astonished that Her Majesty's Government should put forward a proposal of this sort without being able at this time to complement it with proposals for compensating those who are prohibited from continuing with what they are doing now. That is very wrong and I hope we shall come back to that on the Report stage and that the Government will see the need for the provision for compensation in those circumstances.
There is one other matter to which I should like to draw attention. I cannot congratulate the draftsman on the manner in which this Bill is arranged. Clause 29 refers to,
"Provisions which are supplementary to Sections 27 and 28."
They deal with publication of an application in the Gazette, et cetera. But when you come to provisions which are supplementary to Clause 23(5), you have to go forward to Clause 92(3), to which the noble Lord has referred. That is bad arrangement of the Bill and I urge that it should be rearranged before it is republished.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Amendment No. 139B, deals with compensation. I wonder whether it is the wish of the Committee that we should discuss that Amendment now?
LORD SANDFORD: It provides a convenient opportunity to turn quite soon to the question of compensation. I do not mean here and now on this Amendment, which the noble Baroness introduced with

1615
rather wider objectives in mind—and I hope I have met those in my explanation. I was pointing out that my noble friend was right and his Amendment provides a good opportunity for dealing with compensation matters.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like to endorse everything which my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has said, particularly regarding compensation. What is proposed is to do away with an established right. Such a step may be necessary for the sake of purity of our rivers, but it has always been the principle of every Government that proper compensation should be paid. I press the Government to take a serious look at this, because if you do this without compensation you are going contrary to the principle which every Government have followed.
BARONESS WHITE: If we are not careful we are going to get into deep waters. Perhaps it would be more sensible if I sought leave to withdraw my Amendment and we concentrated our discussion on the tricky question of compensation. It is very useful to have this preliminary statement from the Minister. Not only the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, but also the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, wish to discuss aspects of compensation in Amendment No. 140. So it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I sought leave to withdraw my Amendment in order that we may now proceed to a substantive debate on compensation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.8 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved Amendment No. 139D:
Page 31, line 21, leave out ("prescribed").
The noble Lord said: The word "prescribed" is a rather peculiar word in this context. As we all realise this is an extremely important subsection which gives to the Secretary of State very great powers for dealing with pollution. He is empowered to make regulations to deal with that. In paragraph (c) it says that it shall be an offence subject to a penalty only if a person is guilty of a breach of a prescribed contravention of the regulations.
Surely if regulations are going to be made, any contravention of those regulations ought to be an offence. If it is not of sufficient importance for it to be an offence, presumably it should not be in the regulations. I ask the Government to consider removing the word "prescribed" because it seems unnecessary and completely wrong in principle that Parliament should provide for regulations. It is surely wrong that a contravention of those regulations should not be an offence unless it is specially prescribed as being an offence. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I cannot help thinking that this must be a gross drafting error. You can prescribe offences by regulation, but I have never before seen a Bill which contains the expression "a prescribed contravention of the regulations." That means to say that the contravention must be defined in regulations meaning that to define the offence you have to define the contravention. That is a complete nonsense. I am sure it would be much better if it were left out. The phrase should read "provide that any contravention of the regulation shall be an offence". I would think in that form it is unobjectionable. This draftmanship does show some carelessness.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the Minister replies, may I express the pious hope that this is an Amendment that could be accepted forthwith.
LORD SANDFORD: I am afraid not. I would not want to cross swords with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, about the precise way in which this clause should be drafted to secure what the Government want. It is not out of any desire to be particularly softhearted towards polluters that it is drafted in the way that it is. But it is not a fact that the regulations will deal entirely with offences, all of which, if contravened, would amount to a criminal offence. The regulations will contain a number of quite minor procedural points, the contravention of which it is not intended to elevate to the point of being a criminal offence.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord surely will realise that it is common

1617
form, when you make regulations, to take the power to create offences by those regulations. All he wants here is power by regulations to define offences. All the regulations need not define offences; some of them may deal with other matters. But the Bill ought to contain the power to create offences by regulations. I have never seen any Bill before where there is talk of "prescribed contravention". That is wrong. I suggest he looks at this matter again.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I do not wish to discuss the rights or wrongs of this matter. Could my noble friend Lord Sandford tell us what this means? I have not the smallest idea what it means. What is the "prescribed contravention of the regulations"? Let us know what it means before we start arguing about it.
LORD SANDFORD: I can only use layman's language because I have no legal training. The distinction that it is intended to draw is between the contravention of some procedural matter set out in the regulations—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: That would not be an offence.
LORD SANDFORD: —which no one in the Committee wants to elevate to a criminal offence, and contravention of substantial matters in the regulations which we would all want to see treated as a criminal offence. If it can be provided in this legislation in a way which is more elegant or more usual, or better in any other way, of course we will consider it and see that it is done. But I do not think there is anything between us about what it is desired to achieve.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Instead of this terrible language all that is required is "power to make regulations including regulations creating offences".
LORD SANDFORD: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I hope the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment will not press it in precisely its present form because the deletion of the word "prescribed" is not what I think we want to achieve. I will certainly undertake to look at it again.
LORD CONESFORD: May I ask my noble friend whether he could quote any precedent for these precise words? I share the inability of my noble friend
1618
Lord Bledisloe to understand what they mean. But for his intervention I should have assumed it was my own stupidity. Can he refer to a precedent for these words?
LORD SANDFORD: I will look to see whether there is a precedent and write to the noble Lord. But the main object of the exercise is to secure what we want; that is to say, that some part of these regulations will be such that contravention of them should not be a criminal offence and other parts will be such that they should be a criminal offence. That is to be achieved.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: If that is so, may I suggest that the wording my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne suggested meets the point which he intended?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, I think it does meet the point; but it is not what is achieved by accepting my noble friend's Amendment. I would therefore hope that he will not press it.
LORD MOLSON: Well, I understand it to be an explicit undertaking by the Government that this will be amended. Therefore, naturally, I do not press the matter any further. But on the express undertaking that this will be rectified, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 139B:
Page 31, line 23, at end insert—
("and
(d) where it is shown that a person

(i) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by the prohibition or restriction; or

(ii) has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to the prohibition or restriction;

the Secretary of State may pay to that person compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides the opportunity for compensation to be paid to a person whose activities, which have previously been perfectly legal, are prohibited or restricted, but at the same time allows payment to be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. As has already been stated, there will be occasions when compensation

1619
should be given, for example when a person has already been given planning permission for carrying out certain activities which are then restricted or banned by regulations under this clause. This Amendment would, if accepted, allow compensation in such cases.
It must be remembered that in this connection we are not dealing only with large firms, we are dealing with small firms as well. Regulations might conceivably, in the case of small firms, lead to their having to close down their operations altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that they have no specific plans for designating any such areas, and therefore it seemed particularly appropriate to provide for compensation to be paid if the occasion arises. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I think it is as well to have a discussion at this stage of this difficult issue. The clause, as I have said, enables the Secretary of State to make regulations designating an area within which specified activities may not be carried out except with the consent of the water authority and in accordance with any conditions which they may attach to the consent. Of course, this could be a very draconian measure, as the Committee clearly apprehends. It is for that reason that, as I have already explained at much too great a length but I think unavoidably, there will be a very large number of substantial safeguards introduced before it can be applied. Since we have just discussed it so recently, I do not think I need go through it all again.
I do not think it is possible, or necessary, to add much more to what I have said about the safeguards here. What the Committee wants to concentrate on now, I think, is the compensation aspect. The question is whether compensation should be paid to a person who earns less money because he is prevented from doing something (not perhaps by an absolute ban, but rather in a particular way or without particular precautions) if the doing of the thing would lead to the pollution of water. The "polluter pays" principle, requiring broadly that the cost of confining pollution to an acceptable level should be borne by the person who would otherwise have caused the pollution, clearly indicates a negative reply
1620
from me to this proposition. But I do not think this is a new response. Nobody, not even a farmer, is at present compensated for the cost of avoiding pollution of streams. But it is clear from the sense of the discussion we have already had that this is a matter to which my noble friends and the Committee would like us to give further consideration, and I undertake that that further consideration will be given. However, there may be other noble Lords in the Committee who wish to add further points to the short speech which my noble friend has already made.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to press the Minister to accept in principle one simple proposition: distinguishing between people who are stopped from doing things that they are not at the moment doing, or are able to do, from those who are stopped from doing what they may have been doing for many years and which they are perfectly entitled to do as the law now stands. This power which the Government are seeking to obtain would be a power to prohibit them from doing that which they are doing and have done. I should have thought it was quite without precedent for the Government to which the noble Lord belongs to take away the right to conduct such an activity without any provision for compensation. I put to the noble Lord this question. Will he undertake in a suitable Amendment—I do not think the one moved by the noble Lord is entirely suitable, but I will not get down to the details of it because it is the principle that matters—to provide compensation for those who suffer loss by reason of the stopping under this power of activities they are now carrying on and are allowed to carry on? That is a fairly simple question and I should have thought the Committee were entitled to a positive answer to it.
5.22 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: I should like to support what has been said on this subject by my two noble friends. The first point (and I do not think there can be any doubt about it) is that it would be completely unjust, and a departure from all the established custom of both Parties, to deprive people of a right which they have had in the past, without paying fair and adequate compensation for it. But there is another argument

1621
that I should like to put forward in favour of a proper provision for compensation.
It will be found that where authorities such as the water authorities, find that they want to do something and are without the power of paying fair compensation, they will be unwilling to exercise powers in a way which they regard as unfair and harsh. One of the main reasons why the purification of our rivers has not taken place faster than it has done is that there are such an immense number of cases where industry, residents, corporations and so on have been polluting the river in a way which has not been objected to in the past, and it involves heavy expenditure suddenly to alter what has been a perfectly legitimate, or at any rate a tolerated, activity in the past and to carry out what is necessary in order to prevent the nuisance from continuing. So I ask the Government to give an undertaking to deal with this matter of compensation in a generous way: first because anything else would be unjust to people who are only exercising what has been an established right, and secondly, because it will be found that democratically elected bodies will not exercise powers which are harsh and unconscionable if they are not able to ensure that adequate compensation is paid.
LORD ELTON: Such cogent arguments have already been advanced in favour of compensation that I feel that to add to them is scarcely necessary. I should like, however, to throw one slightly different perspective which may even add force to these arguments. It is a layman's perspective and doubtless will not be altogether supported by the noble and learned Lords by whom I am surrounded; but it is this. The farmer is dependent upon the sale of his crops for his livelihood, and the method of increasing those crops by applying organic manure has been going on literally since time immemorial. The application of chemical fertilisers has dated, I suppose, from Sir John Law's patent taken out in 1842. Therefore it has been going on for over a century. This is not a new departure but is an established custom.
If you reduce the farmer's ability to do this you thereby reduce his income,
1622
and if that is done you effectively reduce the value of his land. If you reduce his earning power by, let us say, 40 per cent., then you presumably reduce the value of his land by that amount or a similar amount. How would this House, this Committee or our Government feel if some foreign Government were to expropriate the property of Her Majesty's subjects in their country without compensation? Obviously it would be greeted with horror by noble Lords in all parts of both Chambers. I do not suppose that the Government intend to do this, and I hope the Minister will accept that a reduction of the earning capacity of land is a reduction of its capital value and should be compensated with that in mind.
LORD COLLISON: I am proposing to support the later Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, but since this question of agricultural land has now appeared, may I speak to it now?
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether that is the most convenient course because the way in which agricultural land and farming activity are dealt with is rather different. We have the Code of Agricultural Practice and notices and so on. I am in the hands of the Committee, but I should have thought it was better to deal with this business of other activities as a separate issue.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: With great respect, what I said related to all activities. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, does not deal solely with agricultural usage or land; it affects any person who has an interest in the land which is affected. I should have thought we ought to look at the whole matter comprehensively.
LORD SANDFORD: I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. I know from earlier conversations with the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, that he is concerned with good agricultural practice and notices under that. If we continue with agriculture now then of course the discussion on Amendment No. 140 will be that much shortened. But I think the chief concern of the Committee is to keep the matter as simple as possible; it is already complex enough.
LORD COLLISON: In that case I would rather leave the matter until the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, moves his

1623
Amendment. It is more courteous to deal with it in that way and I prefer to give him my support then.
BARONESS WHITE: With respect, it appears to me that we have already reached agriculture and therefore the course proposed might be more sensible. I think that all the noble Lords who have spoken so far have expressed mainly an interest in agriculture and in the effect on land. I am sympathetic with the line that has already been taken by noble Lords opposite, because one does not want to penalise farmers or agricultural interests; rather, we should try to find ways in which we could help the agricultural industry to comply with the needs for environmental protection. The difficulty is to find the right balance as between private individual interests and the public welfare. I find this one of the most difficult matters of all.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was entirely correct in saying that we in this country normally work on the principle that "the polluter pays"; and once we depart from that we are entering a pretty difficult area. This practice is not universally followed. In some other countries—for example, I understand, in France—where either the national Government, in some circumstances, or the regional government, in others, consider that certain farming practices are damaging to the environment, they pay grants to farmers in order to install equipment for dealing with sewage or sludge or effluent. Then the farmer may be able to keep the environment relatively inviolate; but he is helped by grants for the very expensive equipment which is sometimes required for this purpose.
This is a difficult area in which to carry on a discussion at Committee stage on a Bill of this kind, but I shall be interested to listen to further arguments adduced by noble Lords as to the kinds of principles on which they think compensation is justified, not only from the point of view of the farmer but from the point of view of the community. After all, a man may have been doing something for many years but then he may intensify the quantity or amount. For instance, a farmer may have been keeping six pigs, which would not hurt anybody, but he may then decide to keep 600 or even 6,000
1624
and therefore intensify enormously the pollutant effects of a perfectly legitimate activity. Is he to be compensated because he is told that he must not allow the effluent from 6,000 pigs to go into a water course whereas the effluent from six pigs would not really matter? Perhaps that is a rather extreme case, but I am sure noble Lords will realise that it is that sort of situation that will worry the general public if compensation is to be paid.
I am sure that silage is good agricultural practice, but I am told that silage effluent is extremely damaging to trees and vegetation generally, particularly in times of low rainfall. Are you to compensate somebody by telling him that he must not allow his silage effluent to flow as it may possibly have been doing for quite a long time? I do not know the answer—I am seeking enlightenment on this. This is really one of the most difficult parts of the entire Bill.
LORD HENLEY: I think that we should get this Amendment out of the way first. On an earlier Amendment a day or two ago I said that agriculture and industry were not on all fours in this connection, and I really think we should discuss the issue in two separate parts: finish with industry and then come back to agriculture when dealing with the Amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord De Ramsey.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: Of course this applies to industry as well as agriculture, and it was because of this difficulty and because of the lack of knowledge as to what sort of area was going to be designated under subsection (5) that this Amendment was drafted, which says that the Secretary of State "may pay" to the person compensation. It does not say "he must pay". Therefore the principle that in certain cases the polluter pays is not completely ruled out. But if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will give some indication that he will review the whole question of compensation, roughly on the lines that are outlined in my Amendment, I am quite prepared to withdraw it, if that will help the Committee.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I hope the noble Earl will not withdraw his Amendment yet. He is quite right in saying that it covers both industrial practices

1625
and agricultural practices, but so does the Amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and I myself find it hard to distinguish between the two.
Perhaps one of the difficulties here lies in the interpretation of the word "prevent". You can prevent something happening if you see that it is likely to happen, or you can prevent something happening which has been happening over a considerable period of time, and as the clause is drawn it covers both meanings. For instance, if the water authorities have reason to expect that because of a change in circumstances pollution may occur from a practice which has been carried on for a long time, it is not a question of the polluter paying because there has not been pollution up to that date. I should have thought at that time where an area is designated and the use, whether agricultural or industrial, is prohibited, there was the clearest possible case for compensation.
I go further than that and say that in a case where the use is not tipping any polluting liquid into a stream different considerations apply, but where there is an industrial activity carried on, or an agricultural practice which is in common use and in some particular area farmers are stopped doing that, then again I should have thought there was a clear case for compensation. If compensation is not then provided, I hope the Committee will not give these powers. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give an undertaking that in those cases at least some provision will be made for compensation.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: With due respect to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, there is one difference between these two Amendments, because Amendment No. 139B enables the Secretary of State to pay, whereas Amendment No. 140 entitles a person to compensation. That may be rather important.
LORD SANDFORD: I agree that the Amendment with which we are now dealing embraces agricultural activities as well as other activities and to that extent we have them both in mind. However, I think there is virtue in following the advice offered by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and getting rid of this Amendment
1626
first, which is primarily concerned with industrial activities but does not exclude agricultural activities, because Amendment No. 140 is confined to agriculture and Clause 43 is specifically concerned with agricultural practice.
The position from which I will start is that the situation so far, as the noble Baroness inferred, is that all legislation on the prevention of water pollution has stopped people from doing what they were hitherto legally entitled to do and were doing before that legislation was introduced. Industry has been progressively required to improve discharges, change processes, abandon particular kinds of manufacture and always hitherto without compensation. Basically and fundamentally it does not seem right, and I think all Members of the Committee would agree with me that people should be allowed to continue to pollute unless they are compensated.
Nevertheless, I will undertake on behalf of my right honourable friend to have regard to all that has been said in this debate, and particularly the distinction which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has drawn between things which might be done in the future and things which are being done or which already have received planning permission. I see 'the distinction there and I recognise that subsection (5) is wholly novel. I have already used that phrase myself, and of course we bear in mind the distinction that this particular Amendment seeks to do no more than to enable compensation to be paid, whereas the next Amendment entitles people to compensation, which is a very different thing. With that undertaking to consider everything that has been said in this particular debate, so that we may return to the matter at the next stage, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment now.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: In view of the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.40 p.m.
LORD DE RAMSEY LORD DE RAMSEY moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 31, line 23, at end insert—
("(5A) Where regulations are made under subsection (5) of this section or a request is

1627
made under section 43 of this Act and the interest of any person in the land affected is less than it would have been if the regulation or the request had not been made that person shall be entitled to compensation.")
The noble Lord said: I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was going to steal my thunder, but he was dealing with the broader issue whereas I propose to restrict myself to the agricultural issue. I am rather sorry that he did not continue thundering as I am sure his would be more impressive than mine.
On Second Reading I referred to this problem and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, clearly was aware of it, because in her winding up speech she said: "This is a matter which is under consideration." Bearing in mind the many complex matters she is dealing with in this Bill I should not be wholly surprised, though disappointed, if it was still under consideration; nor will I grumble if I receive an assurance that the noble Baroness will be in a position to deal with it at the Report stage. I think this is what the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was also seeking. If the wording of my Amendment is unacceptable, I shall be satisfied if the noble Baroness is able to accept the principle involved. I believe the case, which I will explain, is so strong that she will not find it difficult to do so.
Subsection (5) of Clause 23 is an enabling provision which the Government consider desirable. I do not dissent. But where restrictions are applied to agriculture, it means interfering with a long standing and respectable practice. My Amendment is designed to make these restrictions tolerable to the individual and to mitigate the effects on farming and farm production. First, what is the mischief?— as the lawyers would say. I believe it is the fear that nitrates from soil, farmed or unfarmed, will enter the subterranean lakes and aquifers and from the aquifers get into the rivers or into ground-water extractions such as those of the Thames Conservancy. It is a matter of real concern if the nitrates are in excessive quantities, since they cannot be taken out by the present purification plants.
The World Health Organisation lays down acceptable limits to the concentration of nitrates. These are often exceeded temporarily in many rivers in this country.
1628
True, this is almost always due to the treatment, or lack of it, of sewage but all possible sources, including agricultural land, are covered in Clause 23(5). Under subsection (5) of this clause, as we have heard (I am repeating this for the noble Viscount), the area may be designated by the water authority, after a public inquiry, and restrictions placed on good agricultural practices as specified by the Minister of Agriculture under Clause 23(2)(c) which would otherwise be exempt. This is because, later in the Bill, Clause 43 requires a water authority to ask the Secretary of State to request a farmer to cease a certain practice. In fact, this request has the effect of a direction, and therefore I shall support the later Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady White, to Clause 43, which seeks to make this perfectly clear.
What sort of requests should a water authority ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make to a fanner? The obvious one that occurs to everyone is, "Stop putting on nitrate, whether as a chemical fertiliser or as a farmyard manure". Presumably in the latter case, the farmer will have to cart it by lorry to non-designated land. In fact, the discharge of nitrates from a leguminous crop such as clover is far greater than from top dressing wheat with nitrogen. Clearly then, cropping and the rotation of crops may have to be restricted, which can mean, in an extreme example, taking land out of cultivation. One of the difficulties a water authority will come up against in asking the Secretary of State to make a direction or request to a farmer is to identify the source of the mischief. Nitrates are present in rain water, in park or woodland; they can be conveyed long distances in underground water. Until it is scientifically possible to put tabs on nitrates, restrictions on the use of nitrates in farming will be of necessity a hit-and-miss affair, and a matter of suspicion. But an attitude by a water authority of "Better be safe than sorry", together with a zealousness born of ignorance could disrupt many people's lives and livelihood, quite apart from other people's food supply—and that largely on suspicion.
What can be done about it? Not very much, I fear. One can compensate the farmer; surely one must compensate the farmer where requests or directions are

1629
made under Clause 43. But many of us have learned from bitter experience that compensation never fully compensates. I suppose that the effect of my Amendment in practice might be to encourage greater discrimination in the exercise of Clause 43 by water authorities, and to reduce the areas designated. Alternatively, provided there was compensation, the Secretary of State might be more willing to make requests and so to increase the area designated. However, whichever way it works, if it is considered necessary it must be endured by farmers and landowners; but not, in fairness, without compensation. Therefore I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will find these arguments irresistible.
Someone is sure to point out that the principle of the Bill is that the polluter pays for his pollution. In general this is sound enough. If a farmer keeps silage in such a position that the effluent gets into a stream and he then gets into trouble, he has only himself to blame, for it has never been legal to pollute a stream. Clause 23(5), however, is almost certainly aimed at the possible effects on ground water of using nitrates, for instance. In this case, the argument that the polluter must pay cannot apply.
About half the farms in this country are tenanted. If the tenant's husbandry is restricted, as the noble Lord pointed out, his yield and his profits will be less; at the next rent review he will ask for a reduction of rent, and will certainly succeed. The value of the land will diminish and the loss will fall on the landowner, who did nothing to pollute. He is barred by Section 11 of the Agricultural Holdings Act from interfering in acts of husbandry by a tenant. Therefore, someone other than the polluter will pay, and the Government's general principle does not apply here. The main point is not so much who pays, but that whoever pays is compensated. The owner-occupier is in an even more unfortunate position. He not only loses some of his income, but some of his capital, too.
The issue of principle is a plain one. There is no suggestion that the practices aimed at in these two clauses are undesirable in general. They are certainly lawful. The suggestion is that in certain areas, or in particular cases, it may be necessary in the public interest to prohibit
1630
and thereby stop people maintaining their living by doing what they are lawfully entitled to do. Governments often take action which has an adverse effect on the living of people—the building of a reservoir for example. But they have always acknowledged that compensation should be paid. It should be paid in this case, for there is no distinction in principle between restricting a farmer living from his land and what he may legitimately do on it, and taking his land away from him. There are many precedents. Take the Land Compensation Act, Article 4, Planning Restrictions. You do not have to take a man's land away before you can compensate him.
Finally, the Government White Paper of 1972 on Development and Compensation says under the heading, "Putting People First":
"A better deal is now required for those who suffer from disrupting community development."
Here is an opportunity to put this into practice. I beg to move.
LORD COLLISON: I desire to separate agriculture altogether from other aspects. I am quite sure there is a degree of difference. But if I may refer to the general policy that the polluter pays, clearly when one is seeking to prevent pollution, one is seeking to serve the community as a whole. We all want clean water. We do not want our rivers polluted. Everyone enjoys our rivers, so it is a public interest which is being looked after and conserved.
Without pressing the issue, one could have thoughts about the diktat that the polluter, who may be producing an essential article for the community, ought to be expected to meet the whole cost. But I will not go into that; I want to deal with agriculture. It happened that recently, for another purpose, I had reason to go into this question of the pollution of our waterways by agriculture. I want therefore to make it clear that I am speaking now entirely on my own behalf and not on behalf of any union, my old union, or of the community. What I have learned in the course of the last few months has made it quite clear to me that agriculture is in a very difficult situation here, and might be asked to do things and to pay for things which it should not be asked to do. I understand that the studies which have been done have not produced any

1631
firm evidence that the run-off or the seepage of nitrogen in the soil or from farm effluents contributes to a dangerous degree to the addition of nitrate to our water. I think therefore it is important that the contribution which agriculture makes to pollution, if any, should not be over-emphasised. It is, of course, clear that if you have fertilised your fields and then a heavy rainstorm occurs and the water runs off into a river or stream, there could be a temporary increase in the nitrate content, but it is very soon dispersed. In the case of open water it soon disperses and disappears, but the problem is more acute in terms of underground water; and as the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, has said, one cannot prove that it is the result of putting fertilisers on land which has caused the seepage. Even the tillage of land can cause a deposit of nitrates. This has already been mentioned.
When we are considering the question of compensation it has to be remembered, and I think fully supported, that good agricultural practice is a defence. Of course, under Clause 43 there can be a widespread designation. When we are considering underground water it must be remembered that the farmer who is working the land above an underground stream may not be responsible for the pollution of that water at all. It may come in from many quarters and many directions and from an area quite outside the designated area; so that a farmer would be asked to stop doing certain things which are essential to good farming practice for a fault—if one may use that word—which is not his own.
I entirely agree with those who point out that if you tell a farmer that he has to change his farming techniques, that he is to reduce the use of fertilisers, the inevitable result will be—and the evidence is clearly there to show it—that to a very high degree, the bulk of the crop and the quality of the crop suffers, and the farmer therefore suffers in terms of the returns he gets for his production. It has also been said, quite truly, that the capital value of the farm can be decimated or even more greatly reduced, even to one-half or less than half, because the farmer cannot farm in accordance with good modern farming practice. I ought to remind the Committee that when one
1632
talks about good farming practice this subjects the farmer to adherence to a code laid down by the experts of the Ministry of Agriculture; it is not his own and he cannot go beyond it.
I believe that when the Government are looking at this question they should accept two things: one is that agricultural pollution is minimal and should be put very low on the list of restrictions when they are thought of, and, secondly, that if in a minority of cases land is designated, which makes the farmer change his techniques to his own disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the country which needs his produce, and if that has the result of reducing the capital value of his farm, then compensation should be paid. I do not use the word "entitled", and the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, does not insist on that word either; but I think certainly some recompense is appropriate.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I would support this Amendment. It certainly seems to me that farmers are in a special category here. It would be an extraordinary precedent if, by directive of the Secretary of State, farmers were disallowed the use of fertilisers to obtain good crop production and then not be compensated. I should like to point out also that there is a great difference between industrialists and farmers. Whereas an industrialist could compensate himself by increasing the price to the consumer—though perhaps that is not so easy to-day under the statutory prices and incomes policy—the farmer cannot recompense himself in this way under the existing legislation as regards farming and the control of prices.
This provision will hit particularly livestock farmers when effluent is spread. If the farmer can afford it he can buy treatment plant. It would be very expensive, and surely even if he can afford it, he should get a grant towards the plant. If he cannot afford it he cannot actually buy the plant without a grant.
I should like to mention a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, and which I brought up on Second Reading. It will be terribly difficult to prove whether or not a farmer has polluted

1633
underground water or a river. Then again, how are you going to prove, if there are half-a-dozen farmers, all neighbours, which farmer has polluted the river most? I think that here the lawyers will get themselves into a terrible tangle, and I cannot imagine how the Secretary of State would disentangle it. I hope the Government will put farmers in a different category in this respect, and that if they are to be prevented from practising normal husbandry and therefore suffer loss of income they will be compensated.
LORD ENERGLYN: I should like to support this Amendment, if only because it acts as a brake mechanism on the purists. The two noble Lords who have just spoken point to the ineffective characteristics of some of the analytical procedures which are indulged in. If we are talking about nitrogen are we really to argue that the interruption of the nitrogen cycle, so essential to growth, is a good thing or a bad thing? If we are going to be faced with that situation I think we are getting into an impossible position. I believe, too, as the noble Viscount who has just spoken has pointed out, that the difficulty of proving who is the culprit, if there is a culprit, is quite impossible when we are talking about an underground water supply. Moreover, it may be the people who are extracting the water who are the main culprits simply because of altering the hydrostratic pressure feeding the subsoil. That is the sort of thing that promotes toxic nitrates into the underground water, not the run-off water; the run-off water will make no contribution whatsoever if the hydrostatic pressure is there to repel it. I would support this Amendment because it has a very sensible braking effect and it will force the agricultural chemists who are exploring the toxicity to be very cautious indeed before they reach a conclusion adverse to the farmers' working practice.
6.1 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether I might start in a preliminary manner, by saying something about the relationship of agriculture to other activities we were discussing earlier. Agricultural activities fall fully within the terms of the discussion which we were having on Amendment No. 139B. The difference now in discussing Amendment 140, and
1634
with it Clause 43, which is quoted in the Amendment, is that because of the special nature of the industry additional provisions designed to be favourable to farming have been introduced over and above those provided for all activities generally under subsection (5), and to that extent and only to that extent is agriculture a special case. If Clause 43 and Clause 23(2)(c) are not invoked, then agriculture comes within the same case as everybody else. I think the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, recognises that. So that all the discussion we had, and all the undertakings I gave at the end of it, apply to agriculture as much as to anything else, except when Clause 43 and Clause 23(2)(c) are invoked.
In looking at this Amendment I must say that my undertaking to consider and read everything that has been said is subject to the fact that I think this Amendment is less acceptable, in that it is giving a right to compensation rather than a power to pay compensation. It is proposing to give compensation to any person who suffers any loss, and it does not state who has to pay the compensation. But these are relatively minor points which I think the Committee will have appreciated already. Certainly Clause 23(5) is not designed specifically to be concentrated against and upon agriculture though, as I have said, it does embrace it. Perhaps I could remind the Committee that we start from the position that up to now all legislation tending to prevent the pollution of water has stopped people from doing what they were legally entitled to do up to that point before the legislation.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord has said that twice, and I wonder very much whether he is right, because under the Common Law it was a tort to pollute a stream. Action may not have been taken, but I very much doubt whether the polluting act was legal. The noble Lord has said that twice, and I am very doubtful as to whether the pollution which occurred before the Acts were passed was legal.
LORD SANDFORD: I have not said it without taking advice, but that is one of the matters we can look into.
I would turn now to the specific and additional measures which have been introduced into this Bill which have

1635
special regard to the particular interests of farmers and agriculture. Clause 43 contemplates two kinds of requests: under subsection (1), the water authority may request the Secretary of State to serve a notice on a particular person; and Clause 43(3) provides for the Secretary of State to serve notice on the occupier containing a request to prevent the specified act or omission. Although the latter is only one of the two alternatives it is assumed that the Amendment is concerned with that second kind of request. The sole purpose of Clause 23(2)(c) and Clause 43, which together form this special provision for agriculture, is to ensure that a farmer is alerted when particular things he has done or may do in accordance with good agricultural practice are believed to be causing or are likely to cause pollution.
This is perhaps the moment to confirm that things like the application of nitrate—the point the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, was getting at—are not, in our view, the main consideration. If he sees fit, the farmer can then refrain from doing those things and avoid the risk of prosecution. But the term "request" is meant literally, that is to say, the farmer can please himself whether he accedes to it or not. If he decides not to do so, then he comes into precisely the same position as any other person, and his agricultural activities are in the same position as are any other activities thought to be polluting water, and are liable to be penalised by the courts. The first point I would make is that there could be no justification for paying compensation solely because the farmer has had the advantage of prior warning that he is at risk. That is one technical respect in which I think this Amendment is detective. If, on the other hand, the existence of the warning itself is thought to depreciate the value of the holding, then my right honourable friend would be prepared to accept an Amendment taking both Clause 23(2)(c) and Clause 43, together with some consequential provisions, out of the Bill altogether. But his understanding so far is that the existence of the warning system is a useful safeguard to farmers.
With that additional explanation, which I think covers the particular case of agriculture, coupled with the assurances and the undertakings I gave on the earlier
1636
Amendment, which embraced agriculture as well, I hope the noble Lord and the Committee will be content to leave this matter for the same further consideration. I hope the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, will accept my comment that I think his Amendment, as at present drafted, is technically defective in the way I have indicated.
LORD DE RAMSEY: I must thank the noble Lord for his courtesy, but I can thank him for little else. I must say, frankly, that I am disappointed, as I realise are the many noble Lords who have supported me. I shall reserve my position for the Report stage and shall press this matter further, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 141, which the Committee will be relieved to know is purely a drafting Amendment to secure consistency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, leave out ("cleansing") and insert ("cleaning").—(Lord Sandford.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Can the noble Lord tell me what is the difference between "cleansing" and "cleaning"?
LORD SANDFORD: I doubt whether I could, but I said that the Amendment is introduced to secure consistency; the word "cleaning" appears earlier, in Clauses 10 and 21.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 32, line 9, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Viscount said: It might be to the convenience of the Committee to consider this Amendment and the next one together. Believe it or not, at the instance of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who told me I should find something interesting in it, I took this Bill away at the Christmas Recess for a little light reading!
BARONESS WHITE: If the noble and learned Viscount will forgive my interrupting, may I ask in that case what would have been his heavy reading?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should want notice of that question! Having read this Part of the Bill I found the expression "water authority" in almost every clause. I wondered how a water authority was constituted. Not finding any definition in the Bill, or any reference to where I should look to get a definition, on January 2 I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to ask her what was a water authority or where I could find the definition. I received an answer to my letter on January 21, 19 days later. Whether that means that the Department found some difficulty in finding out where the definition of water authority really was, I do not know, but I am grateful to her for her reply.
Before that date, I had discovered for myself that the definition was contained, and the constitution of it set out, in the Water Act 1973. That Act contains this provision in Section 2(3):
"In that Act and any other enactment 'water authority' means an authority established in accordance with that Act of 1973"—
that is, the Water Act. I make no complaint about that. It is convenient not to have to repeat a full definition in all subsequent Bills, but so far as one can, one sets one's face against legislation by reference. All I say to the noble Lord is that it is really very convenient in a Bill of this sort, if you wish to avoid setting out previous definitions, at least to give an indication of where one should look to find out how that particular authority is defined.
It would have saved me a great deal of time if the words I ask the Committee to insert in the Bill are so inserted, and it may save many other people, when they have to consider this Bill, a great deal of time finding that key as to where they should look for information. I cannot see that this Amendment can be controversial. I cannot see that it will imperil the passage of this Bill. I hope that it may be an exceptional Amendment in this respect and that the Government can accept it without any qualification or delay.
LORD SANDFORD: I am sorry that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, had to wait that length of time before receiving an answer. I can only think that my noble friend Lady Young was busy considering Amendments put down to the Water Bill by the noble
1638
and learned Viscount. But he has found the answer to his own Amendment. If, in reading the particular subsection, he had gone on he would have seen that the definition is established in accordance with the whole of the section, and the section runs to more than a whole page of the Water Act 1973; it really is not complete unless it is taken in that context. I think perhaps that is the reason why in this particular case the definition is made by reference and not otherwise.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It is not done by reference in this Bill and that is my complaint. My Amendment is to propose that it is done by reference; "water authority" means an authority established in accordance with Section 2 of the Water Act, 1973. It is because that wording is not there that one may waste a lot of time.
LORD SANDFORD: I was coming on to that point. The point I was making there was that the water authority just cannot be defined in simple terms; it has to be defined by a reference to the whole of this section. I have had two pieces of advice from the noble and learned Viscount. One was to accept this Amendment here and now standing on my feet; the other was, the day before, to do no such thing. I will, therefore, settle for considering the proposal that his Amendment should be inserted in order that the reference should be here in the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I cannot recollect advising the noble Lord never to accept Amendments. I said that it was a wise practice where there was any doubt at all. But I cannot see that there is any doubt about this. The Amendment does the very thing that the noble Lord suggested, and I feel inclined to press it to a Division if the noble Lord does not accept it. I shall get annoyed about this in a moment. I must restrain myself.
LORD MOLSON: I should like to say that there is an established practice which would be much more honoured in the breach than in the observance. There is a pride in the Parliamentary Counsels Office that unless an Amendment has been drafted there and bears the hallmark of that particular office, it must necessarily be unsatisfactory and unacceptable. Where there is something perfectly plain

1639
and straightforward of this kind, the drafting of which has been criticised from all sides on every day this Bill has been before the Committee, I hope that my noble and learned friend will insist that it should be included. It is perfectly plain and straightforward. It is exactly in line with other definitions in the Interpretation clause. I have just looked it up. For example, a hovercraft is defined there:
"'Vesssel' includes a hovercraft within the meaning of the Hovercraft Act 1968."
BARONESS WHITE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? It is most unfortunate that he has chosen a particular example which, by a future Amendment, will be deleted!
LORD SANDFORD: Perhaps I can intervene to say that we have had a very agreeable Committee stage so far, and the last thing I would want to do would be to annoy the noble and learned Viscount, or any other noble Lord. Let us therefore accept his Amendments. We can always return to them at another stage if, peradventure, any further Amendment is needed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord. I hope this will constitute a precedent in relation to other Amendments in my name.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I beg to move Amendment No. 141B.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 14, at end insert—
("and
"water authority" means an authority established in accordance with section 2 of the Water Act 1973.")—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.20 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 141C:
Page 32, line 17, after ("paragraph") insert ("after consultation with The National Water Council").
The noble Baroness said: I am so moved by excitement at the acceptance of that last Amendment that I can hardly concentrate my thoughts on this one! However, this is a serious Amendment
1640
because we have been discussing the relationship of agriculture to the Bill before us. We are now all fully aware that in so far as agriculture is concerned it is to receive special treatment in relation to pollution.
This special treatment consists largely in that in the agricultural context, if one can show that one has been acting in accordance with good agricultural practice, then one will not be liable to various difficulties or penalties. What is good agricultural practice is contained in Clause 23(8) and is to be determined according to a code approved for the purposes of that paragraph (c) by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State. This is all very well so far as it goes, but, after all, the object of this entire exercise is that this code should be drawn up in relation to pollution, and pollution of water. This is Part II of the Bill. We feel that we should ask that those whose prime responsibility is the purity of water should have some say in a code which is drawn up with this purpose in mind. This is not a general agricultural code. This is a code drawn up with particular reference to avoidance of pollution. It appears to us that it would be irresponsible to allow this proposal to go through as it stands, without any reference at all to anybody who is responsible for the purity of the water supply and the regulation of our water system.
We thought carefully about this. There is no reference here to the Secretary of State, so far as England is concerned, who is responsible for the environment; it is exclusively the responsibility of his Ministerial colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. We wondered whether it was practical to refer to water authorities, which we have now satisfactorily defined, but this seemed also rather difficult because there are a number of them, and it might be regarded as inappropriate that every one of them should have to be consulted about a code. In our view, one of the difficulties about a code is that conditions vary so much from one part of the country to another according to local circumstances. A universal code seems almost impossible to compile, unless it is going to be in such general terms that it will have very slight regulatory effect.
It seemed, on balance, that the best suggestion we could make was that this code should be drawn up with the co-operation of the National Water Council, on which various interests are represented and, as we all know, is presided over at the present time by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in whom I am sure all of us would have entire confidence. We are moved also to suggest that the water interests with responsibility should be brought in in some shape or form, because we are not clear how the Minister of Agriculture is going to draw up a practical code and how such a code is to take cognisance of the extreme variety of conditions which prevail concerning every kind of agricultural activity in different parts of the country. I was told by one of my farming friends that, according to the area in which you live, your pig population may be fed on swill, which produces vast quantities of effluent, or in other parts they may be dry fed, which produces far less effluent. There are all kinds of practical considerations which vary according to the nature of the soil, the weather and so on.
Who is going to draw up this code? The officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are not, so far as I know, trained in pollution control. That is not their first interest. Their major interest is to help improve productivity of the soil. The increased intensification of agriculture, and the rapid changes in agricultural technology with these various forms of fertilisers and feedingstuffs for intensive stock rearing, poultry rearing, can have serious biological effects. We are concerned as to how this is going to work, and whether we are going to have adequate protection for the rest of the community unless we have some sort of watchdog, and also that it is not left exclusively to the agricultural interests to draw up this code without any regard at all to the views of those who are responsible for protecting the purity of our water supply.
I do not think that I need emphasise this point further, except to say that I have tried to take advice on it. When there was the change in the National Agricultural Advisory Service, and we now have A.D.A.S. instead of N.A.A.S., a good deal of expertise was lost. The staff is not very thick on the ground, and they have many other responsibilities. If
1642
farmers are expected to observe a code, they will need local and expert advice. Is that really going to be forthcoming, or is the code not going to be very strongly enforced? It seems to me that this is an ingenious way of trying to deal with agriculture and pollution, but it has aspects which worry us a good deal. That is why we have put down this Amendment as a sensible means of trying to reconcile the interests of the farming community with the interests of the other members of the community covered in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.27 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: Of course the noble Baroness is quite right; this is a matter of reconciling the interests of the farming community with those of the rest of the community and their needs for the supply of wholesome and pure water. In so far as the Amendment is a probing Amendment, I can say a number of things, and I am glad of the opportunity to say how matters are proceeding at the moment. The codes of agricultural practice, which are based on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advisory bulletins, are now being prepared by the Ministry. They number eleven in all, and cover lime and fertiliser recommendations based on soil types, and analysis for arable crops, for grassland, vegetables, bulbs, fruit, hops and glasshouse crops. So the noble Baroness will see that there are different codes, and not only for different activities but for different areas of the country with their different soils. Others cover farm waste disposal of silage effluent and animal manure. The noble Baroness mentioned that there would be a need for a number of different codes in that respect, and she is quite right. Also included are pesticides, their safe use, application and disposal.
The Committee will see from that catalogue that the subject matter is primarily, in the first instance, almost exclusively agricultural, and concerns matters on which everybody will agree that the agricultural departments are the chief authorities. But, as the noble Baroness rightly perceived to be necessary, these codes are not just left entirely to them; they are being examined by my right honourable friend's Department, and, in particular, his water pollution experts. In our view it is not necessary for it to be

1643
made mandatory in legislation for the National Water Council to be consulted over their content as a matter of course, though I see the merit of the general proposition that they should be drawn in as and when necessary.
Over and above all that, a registration procedure for pesticides and other toxic chemicals is operated by a further independent advisory committee under the chairmanship of Professor Wilson. This committee carefully examines and recommends the safe rates of application for pesticides and toxic chemicals. So there is another body concerned with this matter. However, I can certainly assure the noble Baroness and the Committee that, when any points arise either in the preparation of the codes or subsequently in their regular revision, the views of the National Water Council will be obtained where this seems desirable. I have no doubt that, were it not for the fact that at the moment there is no staff to be consulted in the National Water Council, they would have already been consulted.
I hope that, with that explanation, that the running is not left entirely to the agricultural interests, and that there is consultation and discussion among several other bodies, the noble Baroness will accept from me that to impose a mandatory obligation in respect of the National Water Council in every case would be going too far. In view of my assurance that they will certainly be consulted when necessary, I hope that she will feel content not to press her Amendment.
6.32 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the explanation and information which he has given to us. However, I am still not completely satisfied, because one of the advantages of referring such matters to the National Water Council is that, as a national body, they could issue reports from time to time and perhaps reassure public opinion. We have heard to-day mainly from those who are concerned with farming or who have landed interests, which is very right and proper. But there are suspicious minds in the country who feel that agriculture is being treated extremely leniently. That is not necessarily a view which I share, but it
1644
has been put to me that, in view of all the exceptions and special arrangements for agriculture in this Bill, we ought to make sure that everything is open and above board; that the best possible practice for waste disposal is being observed, and that if there are difficulties the public will be told what consideration has been given to them.
The trouble about having nothing but consultation behind closed doors, and feeling, now and again, that one might turn to the National Water Council, is that people do not have any information and it is usually very difficult for them to get it. I speak partly on behalf of some of those in the various conservation societies who are concerned about this point. It seems to us that a duty to consult with a very responsible body like the National Water Council is not unreasonable. They would not have to consider every document in great detail. It is true that the Council are only now establishing their staff, but when they have their staff these matters will be dealt with in the normal administrative way, and it is only when there are matters of dubiety or differences of opinion that the National Water Council will have to comment. The Council ought to be fully aware of what is being proposed and, if they felt fit, should take the initiative in opening discussions. I am willing to believe that these various codes are being examined very carefully in the Department of the Environment, but we shall never know that they are. A body with the standing of the National Water Council, with independent status, would be able to reassure, inform and educate the public in a way which is not normally a function of a Government Department examining codes issued by another Government Department.
Therefore I hope the Minister will think again and see whether he can meet us. I do not think what we are asking for is unreasonable, and I hope very much that he will have a further look at this Amendment. I should much prefer him to accept it here and now—we were once lucky—but perhaps that is expecting too much. The noble Lord could make a gesture which would be very much appreciated by those who are passionately concerned about the ecological well-being of the country, and who feel sincerely that there should be more than one interest and

1645
more than one mind involved. We have tried very hard to think of the most sensible and least onerous way of doing what we want and I feel that we are entirely justified.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to support what the noble Baroness has said. Unless we give these councils something to do, we shall not get people to serve on them and give their time to them. There is a lot of cogency in the noble Baroness's argument, and I hope that the Minister will look again at this Amendment.
LORD COLLISON: It has been said that the public may feel that agriculture is being favourably treated, and I can understand that. But in view of the studies that I have recently made I fear that agriculture will be treated ungenerously, and that the contribution to pollution made by agriculture will be greatly exaggerated. There is no evidence that an increase of nitrates in potable water, to a degree which renders it unsuitable for consumption, is due to agricultural pollution. Therefore, it is quite proper for those of us who have studied this matter to make the point that this emotive subject—and pollution is emotive—should not lead people to misunderstand and over-emphasise what agriculture is doing. It is not doing very much, as I am sure will be confirmed when the scientific people have collected all their evidence.
VISCOUNT AMORY: The noble Lord, Lord Collison, knows a great deal about this subject and the noble Baroness, Lady White, made some good points. But I am satisfied with the explanation of my noble friend Lord Sandford, that consultation with the National Water Council in all appropriate cases could and would take place, and that it is unnecessary to go to the length of putting a mandatory obligation in the Bill. The National Water Council will find no shortage of work to do, and if they were not consulted enough they could themselves request further consultation. As they will carry great weight, such requests are extremely unlikely to be resisted by the Government Department concerned.
LORD SANDFORD: I would certainly confirm that the National Water Council will not lack work, and it would not be
1646
appropriate to consult them as a matter of course about the detailed construction of codes. However, I fully understand that the noble Baroness and some of her friends may think there is something underhand going on, which will not see the light of day and which ought to do so. So I confirm that there is nothing whatever to stop the National Water Council from studying the codes to whatever extent they think is necessary for the discharge of their functions and commenting upon them, particularly in their annual report. But I will certainly look at this again to see if there is anything more we can do to meet the suspicions and anxieties that the noble Baroness has expressed, short of making it mandatory for the National Water Council to be consulted at all points in the construction of these codes, which I think is going too far.
BARONESS WHITE: In the light of the noble Lord's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think that I perhaps owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, after having spoken so much on this particular clause, for rising to my feet now to raise some matters on the Question, That the clause stand part? In order to relieve any anxiety he may feel, I will assure him that I have no intention of dividing the Committee on the clause.
During the course of the discussions I have drawn attention to one or two matters, and I must say that this most important clause seems to me to weaken the existing law with regard to pollution very considerably in favour of polluters. I have already drawn attention to two respects. The first is the omission from this Bill of a provision in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The noble Lord has said he will consider that; but as the Bill stands that is one weakness. The second is that it provides a new and, as I think, wholly unnecessary defence which will provide an escape hatch for polluters; and that is in Clause 23(2)(d). I know that the noble Lord received advice from someone (he revealed that fact on Tuesday)—advice

1647
given, I would feel, with some temerity; whether from a lawyer or a non-lawyer I do not know, but I suspect the latter—to the effect that if that defence had been available at the time of the case of Alphacell Limited v. Woodward it would have made no difference to the result. That is advice from which, I must say, I beg leave to differ. Those are two respects in which this clause seems to me to weaken the existing law.
But there is a third respect in which it appears to me that there is a serious omission. This Bill omits, without replacement so far as I can see, subsections (8) and (9) of the corresponding section of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. I will not attempt to paraphrase those sections, but I would, if I might, draw the Committee's attention to the relevant portions of them. The Committee will see that Clause 23 of this Bill always provides that "a person" shall commit an offence. "Person" of course includes a body corporate and a nationalised body, like the National Coal Board, the Railways Board or any similar body. In the 1951 Act there were special provisions relating to corporate bodies and corporations, and subsection (8) provided as follows—and I will read only the material parts, if I may:
"Where an offence punishable under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
"In this subsection, the expression 'director', in relation to any body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking, being a body corporate whose affairs are managed by the members thereof, means a member of that body."
Subsection (9), so far as material, reads as follows:
"Where a person is convicted of an offence by virtue of the last foregoing subsection as having at the time of its commission been a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of a body corporate within the meaning of that subsection (or been purporting to act in any such capacity), and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the offence was substantially a repetition or continuation of
1648
an earlier offence by the body corporate after it had been convicted of the earlier offence (whether under this Act or otherwise), he shall be liable to the same penalties as the body corporate under the proviso to subsection (7) of this section, including ' the imprisonment to which it would be liable if a natural person'."
Those are pretty extensive words, and they are part of the existing law. I cannot find them anywhere in this Bill. I cannot find them applying at all to Clause 23. I cannot believe that their omission has been inadvertent. If I am told their omission is inadvertent, I shall of course accept it and shall be glad if the Minister will undertake to insert similar provisions at a later stage of this Bill. But if it is deliberate, I should like to know the reasons for the omission.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for giving me an opportunity to go further into some of these things, but I think that before any other Recess prior to having to undertake the handling of a Bill of this size in your Lordships' House I will perhaps send the noble and learned Viscount some more light reading other than the Bill I am dealing with. I do not believe that Clause 23 constitutes a weakening of what was already in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 and 1961, but rather that Clauses 23 and 24 taken together—and we have not come to Clause 24 yet—are, although in a different form, every bit as effective and of course far wider in their scope; and this is the direction in which we are moving in this Bill. For instance, we take in for the first time underground waters, tidal stretches of rivers and sea within territorial limits. Also for the first time, as I have said, we cover the natural escape of water from abandoned mines; and, again for the first time, the measures for dealing with pollution from discharges from vessels are strengthened and extended. So not only, as I believe, are the measures as effective as they were before, but they cover this much wider range of discharges and potential pollutions. But no doubt we can return to these points when we come to Clause 24.
The noble and learned Viscount asked me to comment on the way in which the matters which were hitherto dealt with in Section 2(8) of the 1951 Act are to be dealt with in the future; and I think that in short I can say that they are covered in Clause 77. Not being a lawyer, I was

1649
not able at a glance to satisfy myself that everything he mentioned was covered there, but I think the Committee will recognise at once in Clause 77(1) the kind of things to which the noble and learned Viscount was referring. If in fact he mentioned a number of other things which that clause does not embrace—and, after all, the clause refers back not only to Clause 23 but to the whole of the Bill—I should be very happy to go into them with him in the course of further correspondence.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: May I say, in reply to the noble Lord, that I am grateful to him for what he has said. I recognise that the Bill extends the area of the law, but so far as pollution of rivers and streams is concerned I adhere to my present opinion—I may be convinced otherwise later—that this clause weakens the existing law. I did not put down an Amendment in relation to this point; I thought it might be hidden elsewhere in the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to Clause 77 but I would draw his attention to the fact that Clause 77 does not replace Section 2(9) of the 1951 Act, the last part of which I read out, and which provides that a member of a corporate body—and a corporate body is a person—can in certain circumstances, on account of a repetition of continuance of the offence, be sent to prison. That is taken out. I do not find that in Clause 77; which I think goes some way to substantiate what I was saying, that in relation to the pollution of streams and rivers this Bill, instead of strengthening the existing law, weakens it. But I shall he perfectly content with the noble Lord's assurance that between now and Report stage he will look into that and remedy the defect, if defect there be, as I think there is.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Control of discharges of trade and sewage effluent etc. into rivers and coastal waters etc.]:
6.52 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved Amendment No. 141F:
Page 32, line 26, leave out ("land in").
The noble Lord said: Without the words, "land in" the paragraph would read:
"Any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged …
1650
(ii) from Great Britain through a pipe into the sea outside controlled waters …"
I submit that the words, "land in" cannot add anything to the meaning of the clause. On the other hand, it could mean that something that ought to be dealt with would not be included. There are various possibilities that might arise. For example, there could be pumping of oil from oil exploration platforms within territorial waters to a place outside. Clearly they would not be land, but they would be in Great Britain. This is a drafting point, but it is a matter of some importance in view of the exploration taking place at the present time.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to support my noble friend. He has given one reason for the Amendment; may I give another. I think I am right in saying that if "land in" were left out, it would not jeopardise anything because vessels are excluded by Clause 24(3). So that is another reason why "land in" should be left out.
LORD ABERDARE: The effect of this Amendment would be to bring within the scope of consent procedure and control discharges of trade or sewerage effluent through a pipe to a point at sea within territorial waters to a point at sea outside them. I understand from what has been said by my noble friends that they are interested primarily in discharges from exploration or oil rigs. We believe that such discharges, if they were to be made, would be better controlled through measures dealing specifically with oil rigs or by special measures to deal with a particular case. We do not think that water authorities are likely to have the expertise to deal with matters of that kind.
Drilling operations on the Continental Shelf are subject to Continental Shelf notices which require non-biodegradable refuse to be returned to land. There are no trade effluents from oil pumping platforms or oil exploration rigs. The small amount of sewerage from these rigs is not controlled since all present rigs are far out to sea, but discharges of sewerage also could be controlled through the Continental Shelf notice. My noble friend Lord Molson mentioned oil discharges. These are controlled by the Prevention of Oil Pollution legislation. This legislation, the Continental Shelf notices that I

1651
have mentioned, and the other instructions issued to prospecting companies are all administered by the Department of Energy. We feel that this is as it should be and that it would be inappropriate to transfer a measure of control over these or similar operations to the water authorities. For those reasons, I would prefer to leave in the words which my noble friends wish to leave out.
LORD MOLSON: I am obliged to my noble friend for his explanation. He has made out a good case for drawing the line where it is in the Bill, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 141D:
Page 33, line 25, at end insert ("; and any such order shall have effect for a period not exceeding two years.")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is to find out what is in the mind of the Government on this subsection. People are concerned that these are transitional arrangements; there is no term to be given to them and apparently they could go on indefinitely. There is, therefore, some hesitation about interpreting exactly what is intended. It seemed to us that one way to obtain a fairly specific answer was to put down an Amendment suggesting a definite term. We have suggested "not exceeding two years". This might be too long or it might be too short, but the main purpose of the Amendment is to get a simple explanation of how it is proposed that this subsection should work.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for her explanation of the reason for the Amendment. I hope I can satisfy her. It is a transitional arrangement, although we feel and fear that it is rather a long one, because under subsection (1) of this clause large numbers of discharges from estuaries, coastal waters, enclosed waters, undeground waters and land which do not at present require the consent of a water authority will become illegal unless they are made with the consent of the water authority. But bringing them under control will be a mammoth task. The object of subsection (2) is to enable this to be
1652
undertaken in an orderly fashion by authorising the Secretary of State to make an order confirming the application of subsection (1) to the type of discharge, or to specify the areas or the kind of discharge in specified areas. The Amendment would limit the effect to two years.
I wonder whether it would be practicable for any water authority to deal with all these existing discharges within two years. They are not obliged to do so, since Clause 33(4) gives an existing discharger who has made an application in good time a deemed consent to continue to discharge an effluent in its 1973 volume and continue until the application is disposed of. Nevertheless, it seems desirable to make it possible for a water authority to deal with existing discharges systematically class by class or area by area rather than higgledy-piggledy. In some cases it will not be possible without considerable research, and the development of mathematical models such as that used for the tidal Thames, to adopt a rational programme for the control of discharges in the interests of improving the water of an estuary. Such work could take a year or two years to complete. Water authorities would be expected to report on their progress in bringing new controls into effective operation and the Secretary of State will keep their progress under review so as to ensure that there is the minimum delay.
BARONESS WHITE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, which makes the matter a little clearer. However, I still think it might be better to provide for some terminal point, perhaps giving the Secretary of State power to change it by coming to Parliament, or at least by means of the Negative Resolution procedure—because otherwise this sort of transitional situation can drag on; and there is no particular spur to action if one can go on indefinitely. After all, we are trying to improve matters, and although I am perfectly happy to withdraw this Amendment—I think two years is probably too short a time in any case—it might well be sensible to put a time limit into the Bill, with power given to the Secretary of State to vary it if the period seems to him impracticable. This would give those concerned a real incentive to make progress in this sphere.

1653
Nevertheless I am grateful for the explanation which has been given and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE: I think perhaps this may be a convenient moment for the House to resume. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.2 p.m. to 7.45 p.m.]

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
7.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 24.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 141E:
Page 33, line 25, at end insert—
("Notwithstanding any order made in pursuance of the preceding subsection, subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any discharge to controlled waters for a period of 5 years commencing on the date on which that subsection comes into force.")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 141E. The object of this Amendment is similar to that which your Lordships discussed before the adjournment, to draw attention to the size of the problem involved by the transitional period. Many discharges into coastal waters, whether a local authority or industrial, are large in volume; indeed it was because of their large water usage that many industries were originally sited on estuaries. Moreover, a large number of discharges into these waters are at present uncontrolled. If these discharges are to be altered or treated differently, it is likely to necessitate extensive plant and machinery. The same applies to local authority and industrial discharges.
When the installation of an inland sewage works is being considered a five-year period is often needed to cover planning, design, construction and commissioning. The same might well apply in the case of the treatment of discharges into coastal waters. There is likely to be need for treatment which may present acute problems to local authorities and industrial operators. Five years seems a long time, but a period such as this
1654
would be necessary to cover all contingencies. To apply subsection (1) to all discharges before that period had elapsed might be inequitable, impracticable or inefficient. It may be the intention to take account of this matter by orders made under Clause 24(2), and I should welcome an undertaking from the Government to this effect, and if it is forth-coming I will withdraw my Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: The effect of the Amendment would be to exempt discharges into controlled waters from being an offence for five years after the provisions had come into force in relation to other waters. There is one fairly considerable disadvantage in this Amendment, which is perhaps unintended by my noble friend: it would free from control the large number of discharges to estuaries and waters like the Solent and the Wash which have either started or been substantially changed since September, 1960, for such discharges were brought under control by the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act 1960. It would also give exemption to other discharges to controlled waters for five years even though they might otherwise have have been brought under control within that period by order under Section 6 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. In these respects the Amendment would make a step backwards.
Even however if it were designed only to prevent further controls from being applied to discharges to coastal and other tidal waters for five years the Amendment would be unacceptable. It is a main purpose of the Bill to bring such discharges under control. It is of course true that tidal waters do not have the same sort of value to the nation as fresh waters—we do not drink them, or use them for watering cattle or irrigation, for example. But that does not mean, and I do not think that noble Lords would suggest, that it does not matter if we poison them. The Third Report of the Royal Commission put that matter beyond doubt.
I cannot think that it is acceptable to the House to defer for five years the start of the process of bringing discharges to tidal waters under control so that in due course we can bring those waters to the condition and quality that we should all

1655
like them to have. I cannot therefore advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment. With that explanation I hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: As I have said, the object of this Amendment was to draw attention to the great deal of work, planning permission, and the like, that has to go on before many of these discharges can be altered. In view of the remarks of my noble friend I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 142. This Amendment brings the penalties for discharging trade or sewage effluent without consent into line with those for the general offence of polluting water under Clause 23. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 31, leave out ("of an amount not exceeding £400") and insert ("not exceeding £400 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.").—(Lord A berdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.52 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 142A:
Page 33, line 33, at end insert ("or in the case of a continuing offence punishable on summary conviction, £50 for each day on which the offence continues after conviction for the offence").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment also has been put down with a view to bringing the penalties under this clause in line with those of Clause 23. If there is any reason why this should not be done perhaps I could be told what it might be.
LORD ABERDARE: The Amendment of the noble Baroness provides for continuing penalties, and although in the River (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, there is provision for continuing penalties I am advised that it is very unlikely that the courts would regard repeated offences against the prohibition of discharges made without consent as constituting continuing offences. Certainly we have no record of any continuing fines imposed by the courts under existing water pollution legislation. If someone
1656
who has been convicted of making an illegal discharge carries on making it and is taken back to court, the courts have treated discharges made after conviction as constituting a distinct offence—even if a more serious view might be taken of them—since the succeeding offence was committed in full knowledge of its illegality.
It is true that the threat of a penalty building up day by day could be a deterrent against the persistent polluter; on the other hand, if the offender continues the discharge for any length of time we would expect the water authority to use their powers under Clause 39 to take emergency action to prevent or mitigate that discharge. Furthermore, the water authority have the option, if they are dealing with a serious offender, to initiate action to indict him. On conviction on indictment, the fine is unlimited and the offender can be sent to prison for up to two years. We feel that the Amendment that I have just moved is sufficient in this case, and we do not think that the noble Baroness's Amendment is likely to have great advantage.
VESCOUNT DILHORNE: May I add just a word on this occasion in support to the noble Lord who has just replied. I would say that it is most important that courts who have to deal with this matter should be able to say straightaway what the maximum penalty is, and it should be clearly prescribed. If this Amendment were made to the Bill, it would be very difficult for them to know what was the maximum fine they could impose. I personally do not believe that if this amendment were made that they could possibly impose a fine of more than £50 without proof of pollution on every day subsequent to the first conviction on which it was alleged to have taken place. I do not think that could be done. Therefore, although I see what is behind the Amendment, it is one which I do not think should be accepted.
BARONESS WHITE: Could one or more noble Lords explain to me just why, therefore, one can have precisely that penalty at the top of page 32? Why is it appropriate "in the case of a continuing offence punishable on summary convictions", that one should be able to impose a fine of "£50 for each day

1657
on which the offence continues after conviction for the offence", but not in this case?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I might answer the noble Baroness, I would say that it is wholly inappropriate in that case, too, but I did not spot it. I think the tendency has been (it certainly was at the time I held office) to get rid of these continuing offences because of the difficulties encountered in applying them.
LORD ABERDARE: If I may answer the noble Baroness, too, my advice is quite different from that of the noble and learned Viscount. I am advised that a continuing offence may occur under Clause 23, when someone is required by regulations under subsection (4) to take certain precautions to prevent accidental pollution and refuses to take such precautions even after he has been convicted. Continuing not to take precautions could be regarded by the courts as a continuous offence. The same possibility might arise in regard to offences against subsection (5).
BARONESS WHITE: Yes. But supposing he refuses to stop discharging effluent and that fact can be proved? Surely that is also an offence, and a continuing one in the same sort of sense. I cannot see why not. I should not mind so much if the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount were carried out, that it be eliminated from Clause 23(7). If it is regarded as completely undesirable to have this concept of continuing offences, it seems to me that the difference between the two types of offence is not so significant as to make it appropriate in one case and not in the other.
While I am on this matter of penalties, I have had more letters about the inadequacies of the proposed penalties in this Bill even though they are considerably higher than in previous legislation. Many people write to me to say, "Cannot some arrangement be made for these penalties to be reviewed and increased?" With the process of inflation continuing as it is almost bound to do, people are anxious that maximum penalties should be higher than they are in this Bill. This process need not necessarily be applied in all cases. But there is quite considerable public interest in this question, especially when large enterprises are getting away with it, as they are said to do, because it does not really cost them that much. Fifty
1658
pounds a day may not amount to very much, but at least it means that if one persists, one does so at a price. There is no dubiety about it. I would really feel happier if we had the penalty either in both cases or in neither case. Perhaps the Minister could take the Amendment back and ask the Department to have a look at that aspect.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should just like to add something. I should like the Minister to take it back and to bring some consistency to these two provisions. I am on the side of the noble Baroness in the criticism of Clause 23(7) which we have passed. The noble Lord's answer with regard to that did not convince me at all that it was right. My recollection is that for years we have tried to gel rid of penalties which depended upon the number of days on which an offence had continued. I think that this is a retrograde provision. You get prosecuted for an offence and you get convicted of that offence. You may commit another offence afterwards; but once you have been convicted of the first offence, that offence does not continue, and that is that. You may do it again, and you may do it yet again, but before you can tot up the total amount of the penalty, under what they call a "continuing offence" (which does not continue), you have to find out exactly the number of days on which it has been committed. That is a very tiresome exercise, and is quite unnecessary. I suggest and I hope that the noble Lord will look at it. It is much better to apply a larger maximum fine than to require the courts to enter into calculations which are often wrongly determined.
LORD ABERDARE: Naturally, I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord has said. But I think there is a very considerable distinction between these two particular offences. The continuing offence arises when someone is required to take certain precautions to prevent accidental pollution. If they do not take those precautions, then there is a continuing offence while they do not take them. But somebody who is making an illegal discharge can do so on the Monday; then somebody can find that on the Thursday he is still making an illegal discharge. But that is a slightly different affair because he might not have been making an illegal discharge on the Tuesday and the Wednesday. All I can say

1659
to the Committee is that this is the way so far that the courts have considered it, as a distinct offence. But I will look at the continuing offence side because the noble and learned Viscount has drawn attention to it.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 24, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sorry to have to rise to my feet again on this clause, but I feel I must do so because when I drew attention to an omission from Clause 23, of the provision in Section 2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951—of the deeming provision, whereby local authorities were deemed to
"cause or knowingly permit pollution in polluting matter which they were bound to receive or had consented to receive into their sewers or sewage works was discharged into a stream"—
I was told that that was fully covered by Clause 24. I have now had a chance of considering Clause 24 and, so far as I can see, that is not the case. I do not accuse the Minister of doing so deliberately; he no doubt said what he did on the advice that he received, but I think he was misinformed. Clause 24(1) makes it an offence to cause or knowingly permit
"any trade effluent or sewage effluent to be discharged
(i) into any relevant waters".
That does not apply to a discharge into a sewer which goes into a sewage disposal works. Then, under paragraph (b):
"any matter other than sewage effluent to be discharged into relevant waters from a sewer …".
That is a discharge from a sewer. Looking at that, I wondered how sewage effluent was defined, because this is only an offence if you discharge something which is not a sewage effluent. So I turned to the relevant clause, which is Clause 48, where sewage effluent is defined. It is on page 56; and it is defined as including,
"any affluent from the sewage disposal or sewage works of a water authority".
In view of that definition, what is the "matter" which is referred to in Clause 24(1)(b), "other than sewage effluent",
1660
when the effluent is discharged from a sewer or sewerage works of a water authority and the water authority is responsible, we are told, for all sewage and sewage disposal works? I ask the noble Lord to give me a positive answer to that because I find it very puzzling.
I hope we shall not be given the answer that we can leave it as it is because the courts will sort it out. I think it would be quite impossible for the courts to sort out this, to me, incomprehensible language. But so far let us assume that there is some other matter than the sewage effluent which can be discharged from a sewer into relevant waters. That still does not touch the point I made, which was this. If all you discharge is sewage effluent, then you will not come within Clause 24; you are thrown back on Clause 23—sewage effluent from a sewer. Then you come back again to the need for a deeming provision. Supposing that the polluting liquid is discharged into a sewer and goes through the sewage disposal works and out. Unless you have a deeming provision, it seems to me (it appeared in the 1951 Act) that you can have the person in charge of the sewage disposal works, be it a local authority, water authority, or anybody else, saying, and saying truthfully, "I didn't cause, and didn't knowingly permit, this pollution"; and you are thrown back then on trying to find out who tipped it into the sewer. If you do find out who tipped it into the sewer, and you prosecute him, he will have the answer, "I didn't discharge it into the river or any stream. I merely put it into the sewer. I relied on the water authority or the local authority, or whoever was dealing with sewage disposal, to purify it before it was put in the river."
I feel, therefore that there is a real gap here which requires to be remedied. The answer I was given was that there was no need for any provision of that sort because it was all covered by Clause 24. I do not think it is. So I have two points so far which I hope the noble Lord will deal with. First, in view of the definition of "sewage effluent", what is the content of the word "matter" in Clause 24(1)(b) where the effluent is discharged by a water authority? The second is as to the need for the inclusion of that deeming provision.
The third point, which I think is very important, and which one does not see

1661
in this Bill, is this. Supposing there is pollution from a sewage works—take, for instance, Northallerton, just by chance; I do not know whether there is or is not, but supposing there is. Who is the right person against whom to start proceedings in relation to such pollution from a sewage works? Is it the intention that proceedings should be instituted only against a water authority for the area—the water authority which can consent to polluting discharges, and indeed make polluting discharges itself; or is it proposed that you shall be able to issue a summons against someone in the locality because the water authority may be many, many miles away? Before we leave this Bill we ought to have some guidance upon that.
I find it difficult to know what a water auhority can or cannot do. It is perfectly clear from the Bill that the water authority can make discharges from a sewage disposal works, as they are in charge of sewage disposal. But when we come to a clause such as Clause 47(1), we find, in relation to this, what is to me a really astonishing provision. It is this:
"This Part of this Act shall have effect with prescribed modifications in relation to discharges by a water authority in its area."
So this Bill is to have effect in relation to discharges by a water authority with modifications as prescribed by regulations. We are not told what those are.
But I thought that for many years Governments of all complexions had set their face against amendment of Acts which have gone through Parliament, and have been considered by Parliament, being made by regulations against which you could only pray. It seems to me—and I am mentioning it now because it is related to what I am saying under Clause 24—that this raises a Constitutional question of considerable importance in relation to Parliament. I cannot remember for years seeing a provision such as Clause 47(1). I can only think that the reason for its inclusion in this Bill in this form is that no one has at yet thought out what modifications—that does not mean extension; it means a reduction of the powers in the Bill—are desirable in relation to discharges of effluents by water authorities.
Before we give water authorities these extensive powers I think we should be told what checks and controls there are
1662
over their exercise of the powers; and we should not remain content with being told, "Oh well, they will be prescribed by regulations which you will not see until this Bill is enacted." I think that is quite wrong. I am not asking the noble Lord to reply in detail now, because I know full well the difficulty there is in replying in a debate on the Question. That a clause shall stand part of the Bill, to important questions which are raised, and which have to be raised, without notice. I have mentioned that now—and I hope I have not been out of order in doing so—for the simple reason of giving advance notice that unless something is done about that the Government may find that, to put it at its lowest, a little time is occupied on that matter.
BARONESS WHITE: Perhaps it might be helpful if I were to give the noble Lord a little longer to ponder the points that have been put to him.
LORD ABERDARE: No, it is quite all right.
8.12 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I wish to raise a quite different point. I do not think we should allow Clause 24 to pass without at least a reference to what is here referred to as the "Dumping at Sea Act 1974". Of course this has not yet been enacted; it is still going through your Lordships' House. We discussed it on Tuesday evening, in the interval between our deliberations on this Bill, and the point that I feel one ought to make here is that if one looks at Clause 24(3) one sees that the Dumping at Sea Act (when enacted) will take precedence over this clause of this Bill. In other words, if a discharge has been authorised, including a discharge into tidal estuaries or coastal waters, by the Dumping at Sea Act, then the provisions of Clause 24(1) of this Bill, the Protection of the Environment Bill, will be of no effect.
The difficulty, as some of us saw during the proceedings on the Dumping at Sea Bill, was that that is regulated by the Secretary of State, whereas under this Bill the water authorities will have the prime responsibility for the condition of water in the tidal estuaries, more particularly, but also in the territorial waters. Therefore it means that there will be two different authorities, each of which will have

1663
responsibilities for the discharge of matter into these waters. This appears to us to be not a very satisfactory state of affairs and on the Dumping at Sea Bill we tried to secure that there should be at least consultation: the actual Amendment mentioned "agreement", but we made it clear that we would be satisfied with consultation. We feel that there should be some consultation between the two sets of authorities in these circumstances, and I thought it only right to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact as the Dumping at Sea Act is referred to specifically in Clause 24.
It might perhaps be helpful if I were to mention something that we learned during the proceedings on the Dumping at Sea Bill. That was that under Clause 24(1)(ii) the pipes through which discharges may be made into the sea outside controlled waters appear not to be subject to the Dumping at Sea Act, although one would have thought they would be. They are under the control of the water authorities, as I understand the position. As there was considerable misapprehension about that in our discussions on Tuesday under the Dumping at Sea Bill, I thought it might be helpful if I made that cleat in referring to this clause.
LORD ABERDARE: Like my noble friend, I am no lawyer and I should find it difficult to cross swords with the noble and learned Viscount. But my simple mind does not quite understand his difficulties. As I read Clause 24(1)(a) of this Bill it refers to "sewage effluent", and as he has himself said, this is defined in Clause 48 as including:
"any effluent from the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a water authority".
So there is the control on any sewage which may be discharged into all the "relevant waters", and so on.
With regard to Clause 24(1)(b), which the noble Viscount also asked about, I understand "other matter" to refer to surface water, rainwater, and so on that gets into the sewers and or—this is subsection (1)(c)—into highway drains.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If it is rainwater that gets into the sewers and comes out in the relevant waters from the sewer, why is it not "sewage effluent" within the definition laid down?
LORD ABERDARE: It may not have gone through the sewage works. I will certainly have a look at this point, but from a simple man's point of view it seems to me that everything is covered by this Clause 24, as it should be.
The other point raised by the noble and learned Viscount concerned the question of proceedings. As I understand the position these would normally be taken against a water authority because it is the authority who are responsible for giving the permissions. The noble Viscount also raised the question of Clause 47, but I should like, if I may, to reserve my remarks on that until we come to that clause. However, in general I think Clause 47 is of some assistance to him in the case he was arguing the other day, namely that the water authorities would be both gamekeeper and poacher. In other words, they had too many hats; they were both sewage disposal authorities and water authorities, and he was suggesting that this might tempt them to give permissions for certain discharges which they ought not to give or that they would not impose sufficiently severe conditions. Clause 47, which we can debate more fully when we come to it, is intended to give the Secretary of State a general oversight over the actions of the water authorities in granting consents or making conditions to ensure that they do not act in that way.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I will not prolong the debate unnecessarily, but there are two points that I should like to raise. With regard to the first point, as to who shall be sued, of course the Government are not in control of that. What may well happen is that the local sewage works manager may find himself prosecuted. Is that contemplated? I suppose it is as the Bill now stands. The noble Lord has said that he thinks the water authorities will be prosecuted; I should think myself that someone who suffers from a polluting discharge in the river will go for the chap who is near to him in his locality if he can be said to have caused it or knowingly permitted it.
With regard to the second matter, which I regard as being more important, namely, the effect of Clause 47, I am afraid that it does not help me in the least in the argument which I advanced before because as the Bill now stands

1665
there is no control over the discharges made by the water authority. We are told that the Bill can be modified by regulations, but I should be very doubtful whether giving the Secretary of State power to do what the noble Lord said could amount to modifying the contents of a Bill which does not contain any power for him to exercise control over disposals by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord has said that he is going to look at that point. As the Bill now stands it does not satisfy me to be told that something under a clause can be done which under the clause as it now stands I do not think could be done. This is something which ought to be in the Bill, and I hope that a new clause will be tabled.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Control of sanitary appliances on vessels in England and Wales]:
8.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 142B:
Page 33, line 45, at end insert—
("(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall apply to commercial freight-carrying vessels.")
The noble Viscount said: I want to speak both to this Amendment and to Amendment No. 142C, because they are in fact alternatives. I have tabled both of them and am offering them to the Government to see which of them they like best. They are both taken from various other regulations and I believe they both have much the same effect. If the Government think one has a better effect than the other, we will have that one.
The simple purpose of the Amendments is this. There are a number of seaports where craft will not be controlled in regard to their sewage effluent, but there are certain seaports where under this Bill they will have to control their sewage effluent. These seaports are those which are up waterways outside the tidal areas; the largest is Manchester, at the top of the Manchester Ship Canal. Among quite a number of others is Gloucester at the top of Gloucester and Sharpness Canal. There is considerable argument that these ports will be at some disadvantage because if a ship is to go to these ports, it has to be fitted with
1666
equipment which will make sure that its sewage does not go straight through to the water, but stays within the vessel, and is either discharged ashore somewhere or at sea. A number of ports feel they will be hit badly because vessels will not go to them if they need to have this additional equipment.
There are ships which go regularly from one port to another and where there are regulations on a certain route. One can expect those ships to be fitted with whatever equipment is required for that route. There are, however, a great many other ships, tramp steamers in particular, which trade hither and thither, wherever the traffic takes them. If they are offered a cargo for one of these up-river or up-canal ports, they may well have to refuse it, or may well have to say that they will drop the cargo, say, at Liverpool instead of Manchester, so as not to have to go up the Manchester Ship Canal, simply because they are not fitted with the right equipment. This puts certain of these ports at a disadvantage.
If this were only a matter of one port against another, I should not myself feel very strongly about it. It might be thought better for the country that ships should not go up these waterways. But that is not at all the position. These internal ports, those which are up waterways, have a particular value, because in general they are the ones which are closest to the manufacturers, closest to the places where vessels take on cargo and to the eventual destination of the cargo. They are thus performing a valuable job because cargoes are carried further in a ship, and not so far on, for example, the roads. When one considers the number of lorry loads carried in a big ship, if one takes that cargo in a ship another 10 or 20 miles inland, one is saving many, many thousands of lorry miles. This is valuable for several reasons. One is fuel-saving; the ship uses far less fuel than would lorries. There is also the very considerable pollution angle. Whichever way one looks at the matter, the ship is less polluting than the lorries. If we stop a ship going up these waterways because her sanitary arrangements are not the same as those of inland craft, we are possibly causing far more pollution by polluting the air than we would be saving by not polluting

1667
the water. Therefore, there is a considerable case for one of these two Amendments to be moved into the Bill.
There are a number of bodies interested in this question—the British Waterways Board, the Chamber of Shipping and so on. I am not asking too much because in fact these clauses are already to be found in a number of regulations. For example, the East Suffolk and Norfolk River Authority has a clause which exempts vessels which ordinarily voyage to seaward beyond the port of Great Yarmouth. There are a whole number of others—the Severn River Authority, the Lancashire River Authority and the Trent River Authority, for example, have similar clauses. So there it is. Do we want to encourage these inland ports or not? Surely we should look to some extent to the future. In the future we will need to have our ports spread further inland. We are hoping to build great cargo-carrying canals, particularly in the North-East, to take inland cargoes from the Continent. If we are going to do this sort of thing, how will the craft need to be fitted? That is a question we must face. Are we going to carry on with the exemptions which these various authorities have made, or do we think we must stop this pollution, possibly at the risk of other pollution, by discharging our cargoes further to seaward at the coastal ports, thus, to my mind, having the greater pollution of heavy lorries on our roads? I think it would be a good idea if I moved the first of the two Amendments and left it to the Government spokesman to say which he would like. I beg to move the first Amendment.
8.28 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to support my noble friend in the Amendment which he has moved. There is little I can add to the extraordinarily cogent argument which he advanced to the Committee. But if one looks at Clause 25, the position at first sight is a little complicated. Under subsection (1) water authorities may make by-laws applying both to streams and controlled waters. A stream does not fall within the definition of controlled waters, but tidal waters do; so one has, as it were, the conflict between streams and tidal
1668
waters. It is from that that the problem arises.
If one looks at subsection (2) one finds that, as from the end of 1978, all streams are to be subject to this provision, that one must not use upon streams a vessel which contains water closet facilities. Then it is still further complicated by the fact that if one looks at subsection (3), one finds that the Secretary of State, together with the Minister of Agriculture, can make regulations which will supersede any by-laws made under subsection (1).
As I understand it, the net result of all this is that, as from the end of 1978, there will be a prohibition extending over the whole country from using vessels with these facilities upon any streams. My noble friend described them as inland waterways, and that would seem to be the effect of the definition of "streams" in Clause 48 of the Bill. Therefore streams will be out for the purpose of vessels fitted with these facilities. I suppose it is always possible that before the end of 1978 water authorities will have made by-laws relating in their case both to streams and to controlled waters, and after the end of 1978 the Secretary of State and the Minister may have made regulations with regard to controlled waters, in which case one will have the control applicable not only to streams but to controlled waters as well. "Controlled waters" for this purpose really means "tidal waters". I should have thought that my noble friend had an extremely powerful argument when he advanced the proposition that it really was against the public interest to discourage cargo-carrying vessels from taking their merchandise up inland waterways so as to be able to unload at any available port nearest to the manufacturers who wanted to use that merchandise. As he pointed out, there is a pollution advantage: there is a saving of oil, and these days the saving of extra congestion on roads, and it would be very unfortunate if in those circumstances cargo-carrying vessels could not use inland waterways.
But there is disadvantage. The provision may operate extremely unfairly against at any rate one public authority concerned, the British Waterways Board, which my noble friend mentioned. They

1669
have the Gloucester Severn ports under their jurisdiction. In their case there is the additional complication that Clause 48 provides that tidal waters include enclosed docks abutting on tidal waters, and it has been pointed out in correspondence which I have received that that gives rise to doubt as to the meaning of "enclosed docks" in that context. At any earlier stage of this Bill we discussed what was meant by "tidal waters" in that context when referring to "an enclosed dock". It is, so I understand from the correspondence, arguable that the Gloucester Severn dock area could be said to constitute an enclosed dock which abuts upon tidal waters. If so, then the prohibition against using these vessels on streams would not be applicable. But the British Waterways Board are after all a public authority responsible for the use and investment of substantial sums of public money, and they feel hesitant about making investments of that sort when there is this uncertainty about what is meant by an enclosed dock which abuts upon tidal waters, and for the reasons which I have given I hope that that doubt will be resolved by Ministers.
I am also told in the correspondence which I have received that Goole Harbour comes within the same area. There is doubt as to whether or not Goole Harbour could be said to come within the definition of "tidal waters", and that doubt also ought to be resolved. For those reasons I greatly hope that the Minister will be able to say either that he will accept the Amendment actually before the Committee—which I should have thought was more effective than the second Amendment in the name of my noble friend—and that he will be able to accept it here and now, or alternatively that he will be able to say that he will look at the matter more carefully and say that a change can be made at a later stage of the Bill.
There is only one other observation which I desire to make. The representations made to me, and I believe to other Members of your Lordships' House, come not only from the British Waterways Board but from a number of other private associations mostly, concerned with other types of vessels, notably associations concerned with pleasure craft. Is there any reason why pleasure
1670
craft should not be excluded from what is, in effect, the ban and should not be prohibited unless they have a sealed cistern installed relating to their water closet facilities. The argument is that after all they contribute, so I understand, very little to the pollution of inland waterways, and it is a serious disadvantage if they have to have seals superimposed before they may use them. My noble friend's Amendment would probably cover most of them. They differ, of course, in that some are propelled only by mechanical power, though some are propelled by the use of sails. But it is open to question, I would submit to the Committee, whether they should not also be excluded from the purview of Clause 25 on the ground that the difference that they would make is very small in relation to the general problem of pollution of waters that we are considering. I put that point before the Ministers for consideration, and I would be glad to have their observations.
I would add only one final comment: few by-laws have so far been made under existing powers to create restraints of the type that we are discussing in Clause 24. Inquiries have taken place at the instance of the Department concerned, and in two of the inquiries I believe I am right in saying that recommendations were made that the Minister should exclude craft of the type that my noble friend was referring to when he moved his Amendment, and also pleasure craft. In both cases the Minister concerned declined to accept the recommendatiion that there should be that exclusion. Obviously, therefore, the Department has given consideration to it and I would be most grateful if we could have reasons given to the Committee as to why the inspector's recommendation was not accepted. Speaking for myself and, I feel sure, for my noble friend as well, we should like to consider those recommendations in case we felt it was desirable in the interests of those who are immediately concerned to revert to this matter at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to support the Amendment.
8.38 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, invited me to say which of these two Amendments I

1671
prefer. I have to say to him that I do not like either of them, and I hope I will be able to satisfy the Committee that they should not be accepted. However, that is not to say that I do not agree with the noble Viscount, because I do agree that we have here to resolve a conflict between two desirable environmental objectives. One is to reduce the pollution being caused to our inland waters by the craft that ply them; the other is to secure the maximum commercial use of our inland ports and waterways. I hope I can leave the Committee reassured that we intend to pursue the second objective and that it will be practicable to improve the Bill by different Amendments to that end.
To revert to the first objective of reducing the pollution of our inland waters by the use of sanitary appliances which discharge straight into them, in doing this we are following the direct and specific recommendation of a working party on sewage disposal set up by the Party opposite and chaired by Mrs. Lena Jeger. They were quite specific that this practice of allowing craft of any kind to discharge their lavatories straight into the inland waters should cease, and the Bill provides for it to cease, as indicated in Clauses 25 and 26. I should like to put it to the Committee that it would be quite incongruous to apply that recommendation, as we intend to do, to small two-berth pleasure launches and at the same time to allow the much larger commercial craft with which the noble Viscount's Amendment is concerned to go scot-free. I think that would be unfair, illogical and unjust.
It does not seem to us to be unreasonable or unfair to require that the owners of commercial or other vessels working on inland waters should make the same sort of arrangements between now and 1978 as are being required of other pleasure craft, by fitting them with chemical closets or holding tanks for sewage, rather than discharging sewage into the water. If the boats are too small for alternative facilities to be provided, or the owner chooses not to provide them, then the sanitary stations that are to be provided under Clause 40 will be available on shore. So to put it briefly, it is my right honourable friend's view that it would be wrong to discriminate in favour of commercial
1672
vessels after that date and to allow them to continue to pollute inland waters.
On the other hand, it may well be right (I think this was the main purpose of the noble Viscount's Amendment) to discriminate in favour of certain inland ports. He mentioned the position of the Manchester ports at the end of the Manchester Ship Canal, and his noble friend mentioned Goole. The intention behind the provision in Clause 25 is to protect amenity, but it is not intended to impose the prohibition to achieve that for the sake of it on ports which are to all intents and purpose tidal ports, except that they are separated from the tidal waters by a lock or by a short stretch of canal, the protection of which in this way can serve little amenity purpose. So, subject to what I have said above—namely, that the Government are quite firm in their intention to adopt the recommendation of the Jeger Committee—my right honourable friend would be prepared to consider the question of such ports as the noble Viscount has mentioned, with a view to proposing an Amendment in due course which would clarify their position, and go, I think, as far as it is practicable to go in pursuit of the objective which the noble Viscount was pursuing in moving these two Amendments. I hope that, with that explanation of why we propose to go at it in another way, he will feel able to withdraw these Amendments.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I personally feel rather satisfied by that. I must say that, so far as the discharge of sewage into these waters goes, I am very keen that it should be stopped, and I was moving that it be allowed to commercial craft only because I thought we might have to bear this addition to the sewage in order to get the craft un to these harbours. If the noble Lord tells me that what I want to do can be done some other way, then I am happy indeed. I have no wish to have any more craft discharging sewage into the inland waters than necessary; let us get rid of as many as possible. But certainly we must look to the future. There are going to be more of these inland ports if we are to have a successful industry. The big canals on the Continent now can take 1,300-tonners. The day must come when these

1673
craft are able not only to arrive at our coasts but to move further inland, and if this is so we must have some way of allowing for the fact that these are largely sea-going vessels and will be equipped as sea-going vessels. Provided that there is some method of making sure that they can get to our inland ports, and that those inland ports are not discriminated against, then I am happy indeed to hear what the noble Lord says. If he does not like my two Amendments, let us wash both of them out; I am not in the least worried. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 34, line 38, after ("twenty-eight") insert ("or twenty-five").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 143. If the Committee will allow me to be slightly out of order, may I take this opportunity of adding something which I ought to have added in my answer to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids? In answer to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for details about why the Secretary of State disagreed with his inspector's recommendations, may I send him the decision letter.
LORD STOW HILL: Thank you very much.
LORD SANDFORD: Schedule 8 to the Water Resources Act 1963 prescribes an objection period for draft orders of 28 days from publication in the local paper or 25 days from publication in the London Gazette. As it stands, the Bill extends the period of 28 days to six weeks, but it omits to adapt the period of 25 days. The Amendment would provide a six-week objection period from publication in the London Gazette for the purposes we are at present considering. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 35, line 10, leave out ("and").
The noble Viscount said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 145A, and with it I should like to discuss Nos. 145B and 146B, which go with it. The purpose of
1674
these Amendments is to make some distinction between what goes down the lavatory and what is simply sink waste. The one is polluting in any sense; the other causes extremely little pollution. Personally, I had always thought it was rather polluting, but after reading the various reports of experts which I have seen it is quite clear it is not so; the amount of pollution produced by sink waste is remarkably little.
There is one further difficulty about trying to deal with sink waste in the same way as lavatories, and that is that it produces a much larger volume of water. If you try to put your lavatory effluent into a tank you do not need an enormously large tank, but if you try to put your sink waste into a tank you have to have a tank something like the size of your freshwater tank; and in a small craft that becomes a very considerable burden. It could indeed become dangerous, because a tank like that inevitably has to be free-flowing internally and that in a small craft starts to affect its stability. I see enough small motor cruisers moving about from my house on the side of the canal; I see them loaded with people on deck, and sometimes when I see all their crew and passengers up there I wonder how much stability the vessels have left. To put a sink waste tank down below, reducing the vessel's stability by the free flow of water, would cause it to go from one side to another. You may even get some of them turning over. You may find that you have added a considerable danger.
Sink waste has been commented on in several quarters. One of the most authoritative comments recently was in Windermere where the Inspector concerned reported that the views of the Director of the Fresh Water Association at Windermere were sought on likely pollution. I will not read all of this report which is entitled Effect of Sink Wastes on Inland Waters. The Inspector wound up with a short conclusion, that the Director had concluded that although it was desirable to prevent discharges of urine and faeces into lakes and canals, there was no logical reason to ban the discharge of sink wastes; in other words, though some of us may have thought it polluting, in fact it is not.
This is all the more clear because we have some evidence of what happens

1675
when a waterway system is completely full with craft. We know that many of our inland waterways are under used at the moment, and we begin to wonder what it would be like if they were all fully used. We know, because there are some fully used ones. The Broads are fully used. So, for example, is the Welsh Canal at Llangollen. Somebody compared it to a motorway; it is rather like that at times. The Welsh Canal at Llangollen holds just about every possible craft and continues to work. It is also unusual in the fact that it is a water supply canal, providing water to a public water authority. It is filled from the upper waters of the River Dee, and it runs the waters of the River Dee into the public reservoirs of the Mid-Cheshire Board.
The Mid-Cheshire Water Board seem entirely happy with this arrangement. There the water comes down 40 miles of waterway past every imaginable cruising craft. At the moment their lavatories are not controlled. I hope we shall put an end to that, but they seem perfectly happy not only with the present position but also that sink waste should continue to pour into that waterway, and as a result go into their main reservoir. If that is so, and it is possible for a waterway like that to continue to receive sink waste, even though that waterway is accommodating every craft that it can hold, then I think there can be little objection to saying that really we do not need the enormous tillage tanks which would be necessary if we leave the Bill as it is. Let us certainly have chemical closets on the motor craft to prevent lavatory effluent from going into the waterway. But for sink wastes, the volume is large and to deal with them might be dangerous in some of these craft. It might certainly involve far greater expense than dealing with the much larger volume of liquid, and very little harm is being done anyway.
As I say, before I saw the report I personally would have felt more strongly about sink wastes. But, there it is; it seems the experts are happy. I see no reason why this Amendment should not be included in the Bill.
LORD COLLISON: I support the noble Viscount's Amendment. I must declare an interest. I am a member of the Inland Waterways Association who have a concern
1676
in this matter, and I am also a boat owner using the canals and rivers of this country.
There may be some misunderstanding on this whole question. The rubric to Clause 26 reads:
"Control of sanitary appliances on vessels.…"
England is covered by Clause 25 and Clause 26 refers to Scotland.
Then when one considers the definition of a sanitary appliance, Clause 25(6) says:
"Sanitary appliance' means a water closet or other prescribed appliance which is designed to permit polluting matter to pass into the water on which the vessel in question is for the time being situated."
There have been a number of investigations into this matter, and at a Public Inquiry in November, 1972, the Inspector involved concluded that no case had been made for a by-law to prohibit this discharge of sink waste. In October, 1973, the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector's view. Furthermore, in the Government's consultation paper which preceded this Bill, and which dealt with pollution from boats, toilet discharges only were mentioned. The Inland Waterways Association were specifically told that sink wastes, etc., were not to be dealt with.
I want to make it quite clear that all of us are opposed to the direct entry into river or canal water of human excrement. The sea toilet in my view is quite out of bounds on our waters on the Thames. It should be out of bounds too on all the canals. But it is quite a different matter when one considers sink waste. I ought to mention that not only does the Inland Waterways Association take this view, but they are supported by the British Waterways Board, the Royal Yachting Association, the Ship and Boatbuilders Association, the British Hire Cruiser Federation, the Association of Pleasure Craft Operators, the Association of Waterway Cruising Clubs and ourselves.
Quite apart from the effect of discharging sink waste, other questions are involved. If it were a significant matter one would be entitled to ask boat owners to convert the apparatus in their cruisers to contain the tanks large enough to take sink wastes. They would need to be very large tanks; they would need to be at least as large as the water tanks. The point about the instability of craft has

1677
already been mentioned. This is particularly true of a craft which sails, for example, on the Norfolk Broads where you have the impact of wind causing the boat to heel, which causes the water to splash about in the tank. There is a real stability problem.
It would be invidious in view of the non-need for this thing, because sink water really is not polluting, to ask the many thousands of boat owners, and in particular the small boat owners to make unnecessary conversions. Cruising on our rivers and canals is now a pastime or sport for many people who could, to use an invidious phrase, be called members of the working class. It is a great pleasure to them, and the expense involved in converting unnecessarily would be an unwarranted burden. As I said just now, I have the feeling that there may be some misunderstanding about this matter. Was it ever intended that sink waste should be included? I do not want to waste the Committee's time, and it is late. If that is so I would be delighted to hear about it.
9.0 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, for giving me this opportunity of confirming categorically that it is not the intention of my right honourable friend to use this power to bring sinks or showers within the definition of sanitary appliances whose use on vessels would be prohibited. This is where there has clearly been a major misunderstanding, and I am glad of the opportunity to set it right. It perhaps arises from the fact that the Jeger Committee, which I have quoted, and on whom we have relied very much for the line we took on the previous Amendment, included kitchen waste among the things that they said ought not to be discharged from boats into inland waters. But the noble Lord is right, it has now been established that in fact these discharges are not, in themselves, polluting, and both noble Lords have quoted convincing evidence to that effect.
However, that is not to say that there is not a case for my right honourable friend to take powers in this Bill, which he does in this clause, to prescribe other appliances besides water closets which might in future need to be brought under the same sort of control. An example of that is an appliance which sometimes
1678
combines—not very generally, but it is in existence, as the noble Viscount will know—the functions of a water closet with that of pumping out the bilge. I think that it is conceivable that there might in future be such concentrations of boats on inland waters not moved by tides or by any substantial river stream that the discharge there of bilges by such a sanitary appliance would need to be brought under control.
It is for that purpose that I must advise the Committee to retain in the Bill the powers which the Secretary of State will have if this clause is left unamended. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving me this opportunity of assuring the Committee that, despite the recommendation of the Jeger Committee in this field, it is not my right honourable friend's present intention to prohibit the discharge of kitchen waste, sinks and showers, and so on, from small boats into inland waters.
LORD CRAIGTON: It is not what my noble friend says on the floor of this House, it is the way the courts interpret something. I had not interpreted this clause in this way; nor had the two noble Lords opposite. Is the noble Lord entirely happy that this should not be clarified in the Bill itself?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: This was the point that I was about to make. The noble Lord took it out of my mouth. I am happy to hear what the noble Lord has to say about his Bill. Nevertheless, everybody would be happier if he could allow this Amendment to go in, either at this stage or at another stage, and take the more limiting powers to do the more limited things he wants to do. The main trouble arises in the areas like marinas where a very large number of craft are all moored in a lake side by side, and where, if large quantities of bilge water, quite apart from lavatory effluent, went overside it might cause trouble. All sorts of things are found in bilges—oil, and so on.
There are already powers under other legislation to prevent the discharge into the water of, first, solids, and, secondly, noxious substances of other types. Perhaps the Minister does not consider this sufficiently applicable, but would it not be possible to produce an Amendment which said that powers should be taken to,

1679
deal with areas of great concentration of vessels—and these could surely be defined—without leaving this vague power strewn right across the face of our waterways? Must we have this strewn over all the waterways of the country simply so that, if necessary, powers can be taken in one or two tightly packed marinas? This does not seem right. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us a bit more before we decide what to do.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall be glad to do that, and I think that I can say a number of things that the Committee will find reassuring. The prescribing of these other appliances under Clause 93 will require regulations to be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 92, and those are all subject to all the safeguards that I went through earlier in this Committee—that is, local inquiries and confirmation; advertisement of proposals, and so on. There is no question of the Secretary of State being given powers here which he could use without further reference to anybody and which would apply all over the country. That is on top of the assurance that I gave that there is no intention to restrict discharges from sinks and showers. I think that the misunderstanding has arisen from the Report in the original Jeger Committee, and I hope I have disposed of that. I will look at the possibilities of giving even more reassurances to your Lordships' Committee, but I hope that what I have said will be sufficient for the time being.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Can we possibly get to this point: if the noble Lord wishes for powers which are going to be used only in narrow areas of great concentration of craft, why cannot we include this Amendment? Sink waste would then be excluded in the general areas, which do not worry the noble Lord, but he could still do what quite obviously needs to be done in these very narrow marinas. Why must we have a regulation which covers the whole place, when all we want Ito cover is these very small areas?
LORD CRAIGTON: I should be quite happy if the Bill referred to "polluting matter excluding sink waste."
LORD SANDFORD: That is the very least we must do. I mentioned the appliance which can be used not only to discharge sewers over the side but also to pump out bilges, and where craft are concentrated in marinas that might be necessary. I should be grateful if the Committee would allow me to consider this point further. Meanwhile, perhaps the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment because as it stands it restricts the Secretary of State too much.
LORD COLLISON: There is a difference between the direct discharge of sink waste into the water in a marina, and discharge into a river or canal. It would not matter too much if sink waste went into a marina. There are some arrangements whereby bath water or shower water is discharged into the bilges and the bilges are then pumped out, but that is objectionable because oil is picked up in the bilges. A distinction ought to be made because it is the direct discharges which are harmless.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord. That shows that this Amendment as it stands will not meet the case.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: We have heard some very reassuring noises and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will try hard to narrow down the wording before we reach the next stage. Meanwhile, we can continue to keep the point in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 15C:
Page 35, line 14, at end insert ("and vessel" includes any houseboat however propelled but does not include any other craft for which the principal means of propulsion is otherwise than by mechanical powers.")
The noble Viscount said: In this Amendment I am concerned with sailing vessels which are in some difficulty, because if the Bill becomes law as it stands they will be asked to do the impossible. And that seems a very strong argument for excluding them. I wish to declare that I have no interest in this matter, although I have just had a sailing vessel built, for the simple reason that

1681
my sailing vessel is a trimaran and sails upright. When I had her designed I specified that she should be fitted with a chemical closet. I seem to have made myself into the ultimate expert on this very limited subject, because when the designer looked at what I wanted he asked, "Is this not impossible?" I replied that with an old-fashioned sailing craft, such as the Prime Minister uses, it would be impossible because such a craft heels over too much, but a trimaran sails upright.
Of course there is a saving in weight with a chemical closet which is important to trimarans, and it is also somewhat cheaper. So we sat down to consider at what angle a sailing vessel could sail before a chemical closet became unusable, and we discovered that a trimaran heels so little that she could use a chemical closet, whereas keel boats could not. Being one of the few people who have sat down and done the sums on the heeling angle at which a chemical closet would spill itself, I can possibly claim to know more about this subject than anybody else. You cannot put a chemical closet in a sailing vessel. I beg to move.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, because if he bought a Porter Potty Continental, as I have done, he would find that even if it is quite full of liquid it is possible to pick it up like a handbag and walk ashore with it; and it is perfectly clean and without any smell. So the noble Viscount has bought the wrong article. Furthermore, if one applies the noble Viscount's Amendment to the situation as it might be, I can see some young fellow buying a great big old sailing boat, which will hold six or eight people, putting the mast down, putting a wee outboard engine on the back and using it as an ordinary sailing cruiser.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: If the noble Lord will excuse my interrupting him, in that event he would be caught by the Bill, because the fact of the matter is that under the Bill the boat would then be a motor craft.
LORD CRAIGTON: It will be a sailing boat, but the principal means of propulsion will be the engine because he never intends to sail it. Furthermore, I think, quite seriously, that any sailing
1682
boat, if it is big enough to sleep on, will have an auxiliary motor of some sort, because otherwise it will not get back to port, and it will therefore become a sailing cruiser. Previously, my noble friend said he intended to apply this Bill to small two-berth pleasure, launches. I could not agree with him more: that is quite right. I have sympathy with the noble Viscount; but I am not certain about one point. Under this Bill the ordinary little day sailor need not have a toilet at all, and the answer to the small sailing Graft, I think, is, "Don't put in any toilet at all"; and that is what happens in the case of a great many boats now sailing on the inland waters.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I think the noble Lord is wrong, because to begin with my Amendment says,
"for which the principal means of propulsion"
and so on. I think that defeats the first argument that he put forward. Secondly, most day sailors are in open boats, which do not have lavatories. As a matter of fact there are very few sailing boats with cabins on our inland waterways. The only concentrations of them that I know of are a fairish number on the Broads and one or two small concentrations on the Lakes. There is just the occasional one on our great rivers; but in general there are very few of these sailing boats. However, they do have this special problem. So much so that, for example, the Norfolk Broads by-laws in fact exempt these sailing boats. The Norfolk Broads are an area which is as crowded as any area can be with boats. Again, we cannot look to the future and say, "There are very few boats here; what will happen if we have fifty times more boats?", as you could, for example, in relation to the canal system. You could not have fifty times more boats. You can hardly get one more boat on the Broads. So the problem cannot get worse. Yet the Norfolk Broads authorities are prepared to exempt, and do exempt, sailing craft—that is cabin sailing craft, not day sailing craft. Since they are not worried—and they are the people with the greatest concentration of craft of all kinds, and the greatest concentration of sailing craft—I do not see that this small Amendment would cause any trouble.

1683
As to any form of chemical closet which can be used on board and will not upset if a vessel heels, I do not personally know of one. Admittedly, presumably one could have things that one could take on shore—though I am not quite sure where. But the only practical thing in a sailing vessel is the old-fashioned right-through closet, which empties out into the water. I do not like it myself—as I say, I have fitted a chemical closet in my boat—but these people will have keel boats and I suppose they must have these things. Perhaps the ultimate is to abolish the keel boat, but that does not seem likely to happen for a while.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to ask the noble Viscount only one question on his Amendment, and that is whether the words
"any houseboat however propelled"
are intended to include houseboats which are not propelled.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Presumably.
LORD SANDFORD: I felt sure that the noble Viscount was underestimating the capacity of your Lordships' House to deal in an expert way with matters such as this, and I think my noble friend Lord Craigton has proved that I was right. He also, I think, if I may say so, underestimates the capacity of the small-boat industry and the small-boat owners, given four years' notice, to solve the technical problems involved here in both securing and sealing an Elsan on board a sailing boat before getting under way. I do not think these problems are insuperable, and my noble friend Lord Craigton has proved that already. Nor can we accept that any boats, whatever their business, whatever their form of propulsion, should be allowed to continue on inland waterways—or particular coastal waters, if it comes to that—to discharge raw sewage into the water.
It is true that an exemption on the lines proposed in the Amendment has been made in the by-laws applying to the Norfolk Broads which are crowded. They were confirmed four years ago. But the Severn and Lancashire by-laws relating to the same subject, confirmed far more recently, do not make an exemption and we do not feel bound by the precedent created four years ago in
1684
respect of the Norfolk Broads. The provisions in Part I dealing with the control of sanitary appliances on boats are intended to increase the amenities for all those, including sailors, taking recreation on and by the water. The prohibition on inland waters of boats with sanitary appliances discharging direct into the water does not take effect until 1978. The owners and manufacturers of sailing boats have until then to devise a method of temporary storage for sewage, or of sealing and securing their Elsans, if that is the thing to do, or following the advice of my noble friend or of noble Lords who have resisted this Amendment with me, or opting to use alternative facilities on shore. For those reasons and for other reasons that have been given. I must ask the Committee to refuse to give them the licence to continue to pollute which the noble Viscount's Amendment would do. So far as the reference to houseboats is concerned, I am firmly advised that it is unnecessary in the definition in the Bill to make specific reference to them. They are vessels. I hope that the noble Viscount will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I do not want to see any lavatory waste going into our inland waters. It was put to me that this was a problem in these small craft. It certainly is in the present state of the art, as one might call it. I quite agree that, given four years, the trade may well manage to think up something. But if we are leaving the Bill as it stands, we must face the fact that we are legislating for a state of affairs which at the moment does not exist. I agree that, given ingenuity, all sorts of things may be done. I am not going to try to force this Amendment on the noble Lord. The only thing we can do is to cross our fingers and hope that the trade will think up some device which can be fitted to vessels which does not include large storage. Whatever anyone may think, you cannot get large storage into a small sailing vessel. Most of these Norfolk Broads vessels have no room under the floor-boards for a tank. I do not know where you could put it. There are no bilges. There is no space anywhere on such vessels. You must have something very small if you have anything at all. But let us leave it as it stands, if the noble Lord wishes, and

1685
see what the trade comes up with in the course of the next four years. Let us hope that they think of something. That is all that I can say. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 25, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CRAIGTON: May I ask one question? On page 33, at line 41 and on page 34 at line 4, the expression is used of possible offenders as a person who "keeps or uses a vessel". Presumably both the hirer and also the owner of the hired boat would be responsible. I wonder whether it is intended to include the hirer, because in Clause 41 on page 52 in line 7, in referring to the making of by-laws, the words are used,
"… a person who causes or knowingly permits a vessel to be on a stream in contravention …"
et cetera.
This lets the hirer out. I will not ask my noble friend to reply now but I shall ask hint the same question again on the Question, that Clause 41 stand part. Personally, I prefer the Clause 41 phrase to that in Clause 25.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Control of sanitary appliances on vessels in Scotland]:
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 146.
I have already spoken to this on a previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 9, after ("twenty-eight") insert ("or twenty-five").—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Consents for discharges of trade and sewage effluent etc.]:
9.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 37, line 25, after ("to") insert ("give or").
The noble and learned Viscount said: Subsection (2) of Clause 27 provides that
"it shall be the duty of a water authority to which an application for consent is made in pursuance of this section—
1686
"(a) to give the consent either unconditionally or subject to conditions or to refuse it;"
and then it goes on expressly to provide in (b)—
"not to withhold the consent unreasonably."
That prompts me to ask whether Her Majesty's Government regard a water authority as a responsible and reasonable body. If they do so regard them, that particular statutory provision would appear to be wholly unnecessary. So far as one can see from this, the Government think it is an essential provision in order to make the water authority act reasonably, with regard to the withholding of consent.
I would ask the Committee to consider the implication of this as it now stands. It is that they can give consent unreasonably but they must not withhold it unreasonably—because there is no requirement that they shall not give consent unreasonably but only not to withhold it unreasonably. I very much doubt myself whether any provision such as that is in the least degree necessary, but I assume this has been inserted in the Bill only after prolonged and careful consideration by Her Majesty's Government and the draughtsmen, and that it is intended to serve some good purpose. Therefore, I think it should apply equally to the giving of consent and to the withholding of it. The Amendment I propose would make this subsection read:
"not to give or withhold consent unreasonably;".
I hope Her Majesty's Government will not think it an unreasonable Amendment, and I beg to move.
9.29 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: At first sight this Amendment seems eminently reasonable, and it was put forward by the noble and learned Viscount most persuasively. But the difficulty arises because the wording as it stands could lead to possibilities of appeal to the Secretary of State under Clause 32 as it at present stands. If one considers the two proposed instructions to the water authority as proposed by the Amendment, they start from two very different positions. Section 24 of the Water Act, 1973, requires each water authority, among other things,
"to prepare a plan as to action to be taken"—

1687
over the next 20 years—
"for the purpose of securing more efficient management of water in their area, including … restoring or maintaining the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland or coastal waters in their area."
Thus water authorities are directly charged with securing the restoration or maintenance of the wholesomeness of the waters for which they are responsible and must be assumed to start with a disposition to keep as much liquid waste out of them as possible. That disposition will be fortified no doubt by the water authority's own interest in clean water as a source of public supply. On the other hand, in a densely-populated and highly-industrialised small island like this there is no alternative to the use of the rivers and streams as a means of disposal. To hold the balance between the fortified general objective of making and keeping the rivers and streams clean and the inescapable need to use them as a natural resource for the disposal of waste, it has been necessary to provide the would-be discharger with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against unreasonable refusals of consent; and the provision that consent shall not be unreasonably withheld is primarily part of the mechanism for getting the issue to appeal under Clause 32.
The question then is whether similar provision should be made for other people—perhaps the public at large, or perhaps only people with a specified interest in the water into which the discharge is to be made to be able to appeal to the Secretary of State if they consider that consent has been given when it should not have been. We do not think that this would be right. The fact that in exercising their control over discharges water authorities have no power to give consents which conflict with their general duty to maintain or restore the wholesomeness of the waters, means that those others whose interests lie in safeguarding natural waters already have, as it were, an assured ally and a minimum safeguard.
It is of course always possible that a water authority will err in giving a consent for a discharger which is damaging to the stream or to its flora or fauna; in that case there are already several remedies in the Bill. Not the
1688
least of these, immeasurably strengthened by the new access to information about discharges, is the simple force of public opinion. But, more specifically, there are provisions in Clause 30 for the variation and revocation of consents, including provision enabling a person with prescribed rights in the waters to ask the water authority to exercise those powers and, if he is dissatisfied with the outcome, to take the matter to the Secretary of State who can direct variation or revocation; and there are default provisions in Clause 86 if it is thought that the water authority are failing in their duty. Finally, the Government propose to strengthen substantially the provisions in Clause 39 so as to make it a duty for the water authority to vary or revoke a consent given after the provisions come into force if the discharge made in accordance with it causes damage, and to restore the damage so far as practicable as soon as possible thereafter.
It is therefore considered that the Bill will provide ample safeguards to ensure that consents are not given unreasonably. That being so, and as the provision to give a right of appeal to the Secretary of State is in the Bill at the moment, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not press his Amendment.
9.35 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: We have been led to suppose that the purpose of this Bill, which is called the Protection of the Environment Bill, was to tighten up existing restrictions. I am not wholly happy that so much power is left with the water authorities, among whom there is a small majority of the local authorities. The worst polluters of our rivers over the past many years have been the local authorities.
The river authorities have not been able to resist the pressure of the local authorities who, in most cases, are the chief polluters of our rivers because of the small majority of representatives of the local authorities upon them. I always felt some doubt whether this Protection of the Environment Bill would be effective in cleaning up our rivers so long as there continues to be this slight balance of power on the water authorities, similar to that which there had been on the river authorities, in favour of the largest polluters

1689
of rivers. In these circumstances, I cannot regard it as satisfactory that this clause should be drafted so as obviously to give a special bias in favour of granting the consent.
The people who are seeking consent to discharge effluent into the rivers obviously are anxious that the rules for cleaning up the rivers should not be pressed unduly strongly. If Parliament passes this clause and says that the water authorities are not to withhold the consent unreasonably—it does not say that they are not to grant the consent unreasonably—it obviously is inclined to give a bias in favour of granting the consent. I thought the purpose of this Bill was to tighten up the provisions and to ensure that consents were not given too easily. We all know (it has been admitted by the treasurers of the local authorities) that more than 50 per cent. of the local authorities are discharging into the rivers effluent from their sewage works which is not up to the standard that is required by the consent. This is not a matter of controversy; it is frankly admitted. One of the main weaknesses of the Government's legislative proposals is that so much of the power in the water authorities still remains with those who are chiefly responsible for pollution and not with those who are concerned with the purification of our rivers and the ensurement of an improvement in the purity of our water supply.
I should have thought that, on a purely logical basis, it was quite impossible for the Government to resist the Amendment that has been advanced by the noble and learned Viscount. If there is to be an appeal to the Secretary of State, why should not that right of appeal apply equally to those who are against the consent as to those who are anxious to have the consent? That I should have thought was equity and justice and fairness. When we look at the exact composition of the authorities concerned, I think it is extremely important that this principle should be established. I hope that the Government will not resist this Amendment, which I believe is right in principle and is certainly justifiable on the general principles of equality as between two litigants.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: This subsection, as I understand it, deals with a situation where a water authority is asked to
1690
consent to a discharge. Under paragraph (a) the water authority can give its consent or, I suppose, can refuse it; and I suppose we all assume that the authority will act reasonably. If the matter were left there, it would be all right. But we now come to paragraph (b). It is going to be assumed that the authority acted unreasonably. If so, it can act unreasonably in two ways: it can act unreasonably by withholding consent, or it can act unreasonably by giving it. Surely, if we are going to consider the situation in which the water authority acts unreasonably, we must deal with both cases. What is more, when we come to Clause 32 we ought in both cases to give a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I ask the noble Lord to look at this matter carefully. This clause is completely slanted, as my noble and learned friend said—slanted very much with the idea that consent should be given and not withheld. It is an important matter.
BARONESS WHITE: I just wish in a few words to say that on the principle of the matter I am with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, on this issue. Apart from the noble Lords whose names appear over the Amendment, the reasons given by Lord Molson particularly appeal to me.
9.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for what he has said. I think I said much the same at earlier stages of the Bill and I am glad to have his confirmation of the view I formed of it. The noble Lord who replied to this Amendment began his speech by saying that at first sight the Amendment was entirely reasonable. I was glad to get that concession.
LORD ABERDARE: "Seemed", I said.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: "Seemed", yes. He then went on to explain that this extraordinary provision was put in to give the person who wanted to discharge, and was refused permission by the water authority, a right of appeal. In fact, as I understood it, the right of appeal was taken on this provision. He then referred to Clause 32. Of course Clause 32 is linked to some extent with this provision. In moving the Amendment, I did not refer to the other provisions, but in the light of what the

1691
Minister has said it is necessary that I should do so and draw the Committee's attention to the position of an objector to the consents being given.
We are asked to accept that a water authority will look after the interests of all those down stream of the point of discharge, whether they are persons who are interested in fishing and have rights in connection with the fishing; whether they are angler co-operative societies, or whether they are people engaged in bathing, boating or anything else. We are asked to say that they can safely leave their interests entirely in the hands of the water authority. It reminds me rather of something that was said in the past in the political field and could be said in the future by the water authority: "We are the masters now." I do not think the public, when they realise what is proposed, will be content with this. What is to be the position of someone who objects to an application for consent? He will know of it only if he reads the London Gazette or happens to spot the notice of the application published one week in one local newspaper in the area. If he misses that and does not get to know of it, all his rights are gone; there is nothing left for him to do. Under a later provision of the Bill, for reasons we shall later explore, the water authority need not even give notice of an application to anyone. They need not advertise it.
Let us assume, however, that he sees it and objects. His objection goes before the water authority, and that is the end of it as the Bill now stands. He cannot complain; he cannot appeal to anyone. Why should he not appeal if he has an interest in the water? Why should he be required to leave it to the discretion of the water authority? The Minister has not dealt with that. It is only after he has suffered the discharge for a year that he has any right of recourse to the Secretary of State, and then he can ask that the consent should be withdrawn.
I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Molson that this is a slanted provision. I am astonished that the Government are not prepared to make it an evenly-balanced one. I should be perfectly happy if they gave a person who had an interest in the water, who could
1692
establish that the water was likely to be affected by the discharge, who could establish that a loss would be inflicted upon him by the discharge, a right of appeal to the Secretary of State from the decision of the water authority, just as in the case of an application for consent which is withheld. That being so, we now see, in the light of the Minister's reply, that this Amendment is much more important than I had perhaps realised when I moved it, and if noble Lords will join with me I shall not be prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: There is not very much I can say in reply to that very strong speech. The noble and learned Viscount has gone over other clauses of the Bill as well as this one, but perhaps I could just say a few words in reply to what he has now said. First, I should perhaps draw his attention, as he is such a firm defender of the 1951 Act, to the fact that this provision is similar to the one contained in Section 7(1) of that Act, which also refers only to consent not being unreasonably withheld. Indeed the same phrase is used in the 1961 Act. In Section 1(1) of that Act it says,
"which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld".
So this is a provision which has appeared before and it is not very fair to blame the Government for being one-sided when we are merely following something which has appeared in a previous Act.
LORD MOLSON: If I may interrupt my noble friend for one moment, we have been led to suppose that this Bill for the protection of the environment was going a little further than previous legislation. To be asked to justify the provisions of this Bill by what has been enacted years ago does not seem to me to be an entirely satisfactory argument.
LORD ABERDARE: It goes a good deal further than what we had before, because it brings into operation the regional water authorities, which are new bodies with distinct responsibilities, as I hope I made plain in my preliminary speech. There is just one thing that I might say to my noble friend Lord Molson. I think there is a slight distinction now so far as the local authority members of the water authority are concerned, in that

1693
now any work that is done for the improvement of the river or for better sewage disposal will not of course fall on the rates. Hitherto there has been a feeling among local authorities that the cost of any work they did to improve matters had to fall on their ratepayers. Now of course, with the regional water authorities having their laid-down responsibilities, the cost will be found out of charges rather than out of the rates and I would suggest to him that this might be one way in which the present Bill would improve on the situation as it is now.
The only other thing that I can say to all of your Lordships who clearly are not with me in my reaction to the Amendment is that if I may be allowed to look at it again I certainly will do so, especially with the object of looking at the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, so that this would be restricted to those with a specified interest in the water and not to the public at large. I think he made that point and I would think—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: That does not arise on this Amendment; but arises on a later one.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.59 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 37, line 33, leave out ("refused") and insert ("given").
The noble Lord said: We had a delightful debate about this matter on a previous occasion so I will not speak for more than a minute. I felt that if an application was made and it was turned
LORD ABERDARE: It arises on a later Amendment, but it can restrict the right of appeal, I would hope, of those people who have a specific interest in the water.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: That would be the effect.
LORD ABERDARE: I am quite willing to look at it again if the noble Viscount will allow me to.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am afraid that on this occasion I am not satisfied in view of the speech we have heard from the Minister and the statement that he will look at it again. I think I must press this Amendment. The noble Lord will have opportunities, despite my pressing it, to look at it again between now and Report stage.
9.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 146A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21, Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS

Bledisloe, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boothby, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Conesford, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Craigton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Shepherd, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Middleton, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

White, B.

Energlyn, L.

Molson, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandys, L.

Courtown, E.

Terrington, L.

Cowley, E.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

down, the least the authority could do would be to send the applicant a postcard to say that the application was rejected. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I was forewarned about this matter because, as my noble friend rightly said, he brought it up on Part I. I have been into it carefully and I am sure that this will be done to his satisfaction. The sort of thing he has in mind, which we think is the way it would work, is that when somebody puts in an

1695
application for consent his application would be acknowledged in the normal way and, in the course of that acknowledgment, there would be drawn to his attention the fact that there was deemed refusal after three months and, of course, this gives rise to an appeal to the Secretary of State. I think this is what my noble friend wanted to know, but if there is anything else I will be pleased to go into it.
LORD CRAIGTON: Did I hear my noble friend say that he would see to it that that was done?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, we will consider whether we need give guidance to that effect to the authorities.
LORD CRAIGTON: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Reference to Secretary of State of certain applications for consent]:
10.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 38, line 45, after ("authority") insert ("or by any person who has an interest in the water into which it is proposed to discharge the effluent or other matter")
The noble and learned Viscount said: This may take a little time, but it is an important Amendment. We have been dealing with consents for discharges, and we are now turning to the reference to the Secretary of State of certain applications for consent. This is not an appeal provision; this is a provision which enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the water authority under subsection (1). Subsection (2) is the important one here. It reads:
"Before determining an application transmitted to him by a water authority in pursuance of this section the Secretary of State may if he thinks fit, and shall if a request to be heard with respect to the application is made to him in accordance with regulations by the applicant or the authority, cause a local inquiry to be held into the application or afford to the applicant and the authority an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose."
This is another instance of the scales being tilted against anyone who has a
1696
riparian interest or an interest in the water below. If a request is made to be heard in accordance with regulations, the Secretary of State is bound to cause a local inquiry to be held. But the only people who can compel a local inquiry to be held are the applicant for consent or the authority, and no objector to the consent being given has any such right. Therefore, I have tabled this Amendment, which is restricted, as I think the noble Lord was aware when we were discussing the last Amendment I moved, to insert after "authority" the words "or by any person who has an interest in the water into which it is proposed to discharge the effluent or other matter". If those words were inserted, a person who has an interest—and by that I mean, and I think it is not necessary to say so expressly, a legal interest—will be put on the same level as an applicant or the water authority, who can have the matter referred to the Secretary of State. This is in line with the last Amendment. It is correcting a slant. I hope that the Government will recognise the equity of making this alteration and will agree to the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble and learned Lord has accurately described the effects of this provision. Clause 28 gives the Secretary of State power to call in for his own decision an application for consent to discharge. This power is analogous to the call-in power in planning legislation. We expect that it would be used relatively rarely only when a particular application raises important new issues of principle or issues of national importance wider than the competence of a single water authority to decide. Once he has called in the application, the Secretary of State then has to decide whether to hold a local inquiry. He must do so if the water authority or the applicant so requires. He would generally do so in other cases. This follows the usual procedure in parallel planning cases under planning applications.
Following the same usual procedure, when an inquiry is held, everybody, including third parties, who have a serious interest in the matter concerned, and a contribution to make, will be able to put their case forward. But this is a different matter from giving third parties a right to demand an inquiry once an

1697
application is called in. It seems to us reasonable to give these rights to the principal contenders concerned—the applicant and the water authority. But we do not think it appropriate to give them to anyone who can prove that he has an interest in the water however slight that interest may be. To do so would inevitably complicate the procedure. It would lead to a risk of abuse by objectors whose strict interest was in reality very slight.
Of course, there will be responsible, well-informed people, both those with an interest, as the noble Lord said, in a legal sense in proposed discharges, and those with a more general interest in the conservation and enhancement of the environment who will want to make their views known on a particular application.
We are not saying that they should not be heard. A wise authority or Secretary of State will consider their request for particular issues to be taken to inquiry before they are determined. But we do not consider it appropriate to give a particular class of third party a special procedural right to compel the holding of an inquiry in these comparatively few, rare cases where the Secretary of State calls in a matter for his own decision, just as he does in the case of planning consents. I really do not think, therefore, that on this occasion the noble and learned Viscount's case is as strong, and I hope that though I will look at it again if he would like me to, he will not consider it necessary to press this Amendment as well.
LORD MOLSON: My noble friend has made a reasonable case against putting this into the Bill, but I welcome—and he should note—the assurance he has given that people who have some interest in this matter will in all reasonable cases be heard. I do not want wearily to repeat to your Lordships matters that I have drawn to your attention again just recently. However, these applications are broadly analogous. I know that they are not the same as those which arise in connection with Private Bills and Special Procedure Orders in the case of the two Houses. But there is a certain analogy, and it is important to realise that under the procedure of Parliament at the present time it is not always easy for
1698
amenity societies, or people concerned with the preservation of the countryside or ensuring the purity of water, to be heard in connection with the applications that are made.
At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I would repeat what I said the other day, that in the case of Private Bills your Lordships' Committee have always been very broadminded about whom they allow to appear and to petition against a Private Bill. In another place it was decided by, I think they are called, the Examiners, and there are strict rules as to locus standi. Amenity societies, or people who are interested in the preservation of amenities but who did not happen to own land directly affected, were refused a hearing in another place because it was held that they had not locus standi.
The noble and learned Viscount has moved an Amendment in order to ensure that people who are not perhaps directly affected could be heard in matters of this kind. If I understood my noble friend Lord Aberdare aright, he said that he would not wish to accept an Amendment of that kind, but he gave an undertaking that the Bill, when an Act, will be administered in a way so that it will be possible for people interested in these matters to be heard. Provided that that assurance is carried out—and I am quite sure that it will be—I think that probably meets the point made by the noble and learned Viscount. But it really is extremely important that, in matters of this kind, those people who are not directly and financially affected—which is the kind of criterion which is adopted by another place—should not be barred in the case of this Bill, but that a broad and tolerant line should be adopted so that those who are concerned with the improvement of our waters, and the preservation of amenities, should be heard in cases of this sort.
10.13 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has again taken very much the line that one would expect him to take, and it is one that I strongly support. I am not for one moment disputing that there are others who may have more direct interests—for instance, persons who are interested in angling, or who may have land further downstream from the place where the discharge

1699
might be made—but it is true that the amenity societies, using that term in a very broad sense, take an interest in these matters, and they sometimes find it difficult to make their voices heard.
I hope it will be understood that where there are inquiries of this sort, there should be no difficulty about such organisations, if they so desire—and if they can afford it—appearing. I think I understood the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to indicate that that was so, but one or two sentences that he used made me doubt this a little. I should be glad if he could confirm it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The discussion on this Amendment, short though it has been, has served a useful purpose. One thing I have been concerned to do is to make sure that someone who had a valid ground for objecting had the right of getting the matter called in by the Secretary of State, and then of obtaining a local inquiry; and the same right of obtaining a local inquiry as anyone else. But I have not been quite so ambitious as my noble friend Lord Molson would have liked me to be, because I deliberately restricted this Amendment to persons with an interest in the waters which would be affected. I thought if I went wider than that I might be said to be going too wide.
This discussion has shown the desire of this Committee that not only persons with riparian interests and things of that sort, but also all the amenity societies concerned—and I support that view—should have the right to ask the Secretary of State to call in an application. It may be that they can do it, and that the Secretary of State on receiving a communication will do it. But as the Bill now stands, I do not think there is anything expressed to indicate that they will be entitled. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—and I was grateful to hear him say that he will consider this matter further—also to consider whether it would be an improvement to this Bill to say that these societies should have a right to make representations to the Secretary of State and other persons with legal interests, to ask him to call in an application; not leaving it just to the water authority and then, a year later,
1700
being able to take the matter to the Secretary of State.
It is one of the defects of the Bill that where there is a case—I am not talking about frivolous objections by persons who are just being tiresome and who have no real interest—of an application for consent which is thought. rightly or wrongly, to be of a very damaging character so far as pollution is concerned, and where people perfectly sincerely think that it ought not to be left to the determination of a water authority, they do not have a right under the Bill to ask the Secretary of State to call it in. I should like to see that expressed. Then, if we got to that stage, I wanted to see the same treatment—though I do not think it is a matter of so very much importance—of objectors, applicants and a water authority with regard to a local inquiry. There may be a case where an applicant or a water authority should have an absolute right to request a local authority, and where there should be a duty on the Secretary of State to give it. I should have thought it would have sufficed to leave it to the Secretary of State's discretion in all cases whether he granted a request. I do not think it is worth bothering about that, but I would ask that it be made clear. Clause 85 gives a general wide power, but I should like it to be made clear as a matter of drafting in this clause that there will be a right to an objector, be it a society or an interested party, to ask for an inquiry, and that the Secretary of State will have discretion to grant it. But having regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: Before the noble and learned Viscount withdraws his Amendment, may I assure him that there is nothing to stop anybody making representations to the Secretary of State about holding an inquiry. But the water authority and the applicant are in a special position, and if they ask for an inquiry the Secretary of State must hold one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE: Perhaps this would be a suitable moment at which to resume the House.
House resumed.