HL Deb 29 January 1974 vol 349 cc176-84

3.1 p.m.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Dumping at Sea Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Bill read 3a.

Clause 2 [Licences]:

BARONESS WHITE moved as an Amendment:

Page 3, line 9, at end insert— ("( ) Where a licence granted in pursuance of this section permits dumping within United Kingdom waters, before issuing it the licensing authority shall inform any relevant regional water authority or the Welsh National Water Development Authority, as the case may be, and allow reasonable time for any representations to be made.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. On the Report stage of this Bill I moved a somewhat similar Amendment, but it was an Amendment which went a good deal further. I was not altogether surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, resisted it, because in my earlier Amendment I proposed that there should be agreement between the licensing authority under the Dumping at Sea Bill and the relevant water authorities.

The Amendment now before your Lordships' House is much more modest, because this requires only that where a licensing authority (which in fact is the Minister), grants permission for dumping within a tidal estuary or a territorial water—and only in those circumstances, and not in the open sea—and where there is a licence granted for such dumping, then the parallel authority, which is either the regional water authority or the Welsh authority, should at least be informed that this dumping is to take place; because it is they who are responsible for effluent, which we are discussing under the environment Bill that will come before us again in a few minutes' time. It seems to me that it is only proper that they should at least have the right to be informed as to what noxious or objectionable matter is to be dumped in the waters for which they have this responsibility.

When we discussed this matter on Report stage, the noble Earl tried to resist that Amendment by suggesting that if one made it obligatory either to agree with or to consult—I have now watered it down to "inform"—the relevant water authorities, one would then have to bring in other people. The noble Earl even stretched it to the Crown Estates Commissioners. I do not think that he was making an altogether sound point, because those of us who have been working on the Protection of the Environment Bill are well aware of the responsibilities of the new water authorities which are to take effect in April, for the regimen of the tidal estuaries, and they also have responsibilities in the coastal waters. It seems to me, therefore, that it is most desirable that they should know exactly what is happening.

The noble Earl suggested that one wanted, as he put it, not so much statutory provision but a flexible administrative arrangement; but these arrangements do not always work. My advice is that at the present time there is a degree of dumping—not much, and not often, and I do not wish to exaggerate it—in tidal estuaries under the voluntary arrangements, and that the present river authorities, who will be superseded in due course by the water authorities, do not know in certain instances, what is being put into particularly the tidal estuaries. It appears to me that we should be quite certain that the authority that comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, namely, the licensing authority under the Bill before us now, and the water authorities that come under the Department of the Environment and therefore have different Ministerial responsibilities and chains of communication, should each know what the other is doing.

When we were discussing the Protection of the Environment Bill last night the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, moved a Government Amendment bringing in the Secretary of State for the Environment, with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, into a clause in that Bill dealing precisely with the waters that we are discussing under this Part of this Bill; namely, coastal waters and the tidal estuaries. What is sauce for the goose in the Protection of the Environment Bill is surely to be sauce for the gander in the Dumping at Sea Bill. Therefore, it appears to me that it is right and proper that we should provide for what I think is reasonable and practicable; namely, information. All I am asking is that there should be a duty to inform, and then reasonable time allowed for any representations to be made.

I believe that there will not be many instances of dumping being permitted under the Dumping at Sea Bill in the tidal estuaries or coastal waters. I do not think that this is going to be a frequent occurrence. However, when it does happen, in the nature of the case the matter that is to be deposited has something wrong with it, otherwise there would not be any need for this legislation before us. Therefore, I repeat that where you have two different authorities answerable to two different Ministers, it is desirable that one should know what the other is doing. I beg to move.

3.8 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for explaining her Amendment. I would congratulate her on her persistency and constancy because, as she indicated, she tried to move something into this Bill on Report stage, and indeed we have been in some correspondence over it. I am bound to tell her that when I saw this Amendment I was much attracted to it because it seemed to be a harmless Amendment. But on looking into it further, I found that there are other factors that should be taken into account. Also, I think that there could be an element of misunderstanding about this. I should like to try to persuade the noble Baroness of the situation as we see it.

In this Bill we are talking entirely about pollution. As she knows, the water authorities will have control over what is put into rivers—that is, fresh water—and the licensing authorities will have control over what is put into the sea—in other words, into salt water. There is a definite difference. Because what is put into the rivers eventually ends up in the sea, it has been decided, under the Protection of the Environment Bill, that the Ministry of Agriculture should be consulted in advance of such licences being issued, or such agreement being given, by water authorities to anyone proposing to dump in a river.

The noble Baroness said that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and therefore when a licence is to be granted by the Ministry of Agriculture for what goes into the sea, the water authorities should be consulted. I would draw to her attention that in fact from a pollution point of view the water authorities do not have any control over what is put into the sea apart from that which extends up to the three-mile limit. But, of course, anything which goes in below high water mark is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, for this reason: all the expertise of knowing what happens to the tides, to the currents, to the winds and flows of sea is all held under their brief in the Ministry of Agriculture. They have fisheries laboratories which advise them on these things, and they have the responsibility of issuing a licence for anything that is dumped into the sea below high water mark. Therefore it would seem unreasonable in this case that the water authorities, who control what goes into the rivers, should be affected by what is put into the sea. If the noble Baroness is saying that it is going to affect their estuaries or rivers I would point out that it will be as a result of the tides; and the knowledge of what happens to the material which is dumped into the sea must and does rest with the Ministry of Agriculture. That is where their expertise lies.

I go further and say that one of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture is looking after the conservation of Fish and fish stocks. A very great proportion of this work is done within the three-mile limit, and indeed the majority of shellfish catches comes close to the shore. Again, this is one of the reasons why it is essential that the Ministry should be the licensing authority for anything which is going to be dumped into the sea and which could have a noxious affect. I have told the noble Baroness before, and I will tell her again, that while I understand her concern about this matter, I think, and indeed the Government feel, that it would be inadvisable to put this particular Amendment into the Bill. If there is any situation where a water authority's interests will be affected of course there will be consultation beforehand.

The noble Baroness will, I know, accept the fact that where the river authorities fundamentally deal with what is put into the rivers and into fresh water, the correct people for the grant of licences under this Bill should be the Ministry of Agriculture, where the expertise rests. But I again give the noble Baroness the assurance that where a water authority's interests are likely to be affected, there will be consultation beforehand. I hope that I have been able to allay what may be the fears of the noble Baroness. There is I think the possibility of a misunderstanding as to exactly where the separation between the duties of a water authority and the duties of the licensing authorities under this Bill occur.

3.14 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, with great respect, I do not think there is this difficulty. I was not for one moment arguing that one should diminish the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this matter. I was merely pointing out that, especially where the great tidal estuaries are concerned, which include the Severn, the Bristol Channel, the Thames (which is tidal, as we are often told, up to Teddington), the Humber and the other great rivers which are tidal for a considerable distance, there is an intermingling both of the water and of the responsibility. It is for this reason that it still seems to me—I think the word "obdurate" was used in a recent debate—that where you have a mingling of the waters as in the great tidal estuaries, each authority ought to be at least aware of what is going on.

The responsibility, of course, rests with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not deny that for one moment, and the Amendment does not seek in any way to derogate from their responsibility. I cannot see that anybody reading the Amendment in its present form could be in any doubt about that. All it asks for is information, an opportunity to make representations if desired—there is not even an obligation to consult. It is simply a matter of letting the water authorities know that a licence is about to be issued, so that if by any chance they have some point of difficulty they will have an opportunity of making it known. The noble Earl says that of course they will be consulted, but when there are two quite different Ministries this does not always happen in practice. I have been given instances where, under the non-stautory arrangements which are in practice at the moment, it does not happen. Therefore, I am sorry but I have no desire to withdraw this Amendment. I think it is a sensible one. I have altered it considerably from an earlier stage. I cannot see that it can do any harm to either set of authorities. It would really take effect significantly in the great tidal estuaries where, because of their very nature, the fresh and the salt water mingle and therefore in my view the responsibilities also. To ask for information in these circumstances seems to me perfectly reasonable and practicable.

3.17 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Davies of Leek, L. Henderson, L.
Amherst, E. De Ramsey, L. Henley, L.
Archibald, L. Diamond, L. Hoy, L.
Arwyn, L. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Jacques, L.
Ashby, L. Douglas of Barloch, L. Janner, L.
Avebury, L. Douglass of Cleveland, L. Leatherland, L.
Birk, B. Energlyn, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B
Blackett, L. Foot, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Blyton, L. Gaitskell, B. Popplewell, L.
Brockway, L. Gardiner, L. Redcliffe-Maud, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.] Rochester, L.
Byers, L. Geddes of Epsom, L. Royle, L.
Chalfont, L. Grantchester, L. Rusholme, L.
Champion, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. St. Davids, V.
Chorley, L. Hacking, L. Segal, L.
Clifton of Chudleigh, L. Hale, L. Shackleton, L.
Craigton, L. Hall, V. Shannon, E.
Shinwell, L. Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.] Willis, L.
Slater, L. White, B. Winterbottom, L.
Summerskill, B. Williamson, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Taylor of Mansfield, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Ebbisham, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Effingham, E. Macpherson of Drumochter, L.
Amory, V. Elles, B. Mansfield, E.
Auckland, L. Emmet of Amberley, B. Margadale, L.
Balerno, L. Erskine of Rerrick, L. Middleton, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Ferrers, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Fortescue, E.
Berkeley, B. Goschen, V. Northchurch, B.
Bessborough, E. Gowrie, E. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Bledisloe, V. Grenfell, L. Rankeillour, L.
Boothby, L. Gridley, L. Redesdale, L.
Brooke of Cumnor, L. Grimston of Westbury, L. Reigate, L.
Clancarty, E. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Sandford, L.
Clwyd, L. Sandys, L.
Cole, L. Hanworth, V. Selkirk, E.
Coleraine, L. Hawke, L. Sherfield, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Howe, E. Strathclyde, L.
Conesford, L. Hylton-Foster, B. Strathspey, L.
Courtown, E. Inglewood, L. Thomas, L.
Cowley, E. Ironside, L. Trefgarne, L.
Craigavon, V. Kinloss, Ly. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.
Cromartie, E. Lauderdale, E. Vivian, L.
Daventry, V. Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
de Clifford, L. Long, V. Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
De La Warr, E. Loudoun, C. Wise, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Lyell, L. Young, B.
Drumalbyn, L. McFadzean, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I beg to move the privilege Amendment.

Moved, That the privilege Amendment be agreed to,—(Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, an Amendment (privilege) made.

Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.