PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 24 January 1974 vol 348 cc1592-653

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) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 139B: Page 31, line 23, at end insert— ("and (d) where it is shown that a person

1. (i) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive by the prohibition or restriction; or
2. (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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 … (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 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 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 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. 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.]