Internal Drainage Boards: Pollution Laws (Hansard, 28 July 1981)

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Earl of Avon
Yes, my Lords, to the extent that waterways comprise streams, as defined in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 and that a polluting 653 offence under Section 2 has been committed. Otherwise, in the exercise of their functions relating to land, any public body—under Section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968—shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at Martham Broad in Norfolk the internal drainage board has released vast quantities of sulphuric acid and ferric oxide into the streams which has killed and blanketed the streams concerned? It is ichthyo-toxic, which means "fish poisoning". If I, as a farmer, had introduced half the quantity of silage effluent, I should have been prosecuted fairly quickly. Can my noble friend please say why the internal drainage board has not been prosecuted for this behaviour?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, prosecutions under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961 can only be undertaken by a water authority or with the consent of a water authority or the Attorney-General. The Anglian Water Authority does not regard this situation as constituting a pollution offence. Its view is that what is coming out of a pump is natural and is not, in the legal sense, pollution.

§ The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is it not also true that a member of the public or of a conservation body could take a view that this was a writ of mandamus situation and could go to the High Court and ask the water authority to prosecute against what has been seen to be a very serious polluting action?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, of course it would be up to individuals to do what they wish, but they must bear in mind my earlier reply.

§ Lord Melchett
My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it is an extraordinary situation where an internal drainage board, which is responsible to, and indeed part of, the remit of a regional water authority, can only be taken to court—as the noble Earl has told us—under the prevention of pollution Acts by the regional water authority? Would the noble Earl look at that? It seems to be monstrous. Would he agree that it is symptomatic of the total lack of control that is exercised by anybody over the extremely damaging activities of some internal drainage boards?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I would not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. But he will no doubt recall that there is a Part II of an Act, which has not been implemented since 1974, which in point of fact would amend this situation. Perhaps I could remind the House that at the moment the Wildlife and Countryside Bill—which we are all looking forward to being returned to this Chamber shortly—is being considered in another place, where there is an amendment which will require the IDBs as well as water authorities to consult the Nature Conservancy Council on any works which appear to them likely to be harmful to natural flora and fauna in sites of special scientific interest.

§ Lord Buxton of Alsa
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the drainage to which my noble friend Lord Onslow referred has caused pollution, but was totally unknown and unpredicted by those involved? Would he therefore agree that, in order to avoid a similar mistake being made again, it is essential to have a public inquiry before the new scheme affecting the Halvergate marshes?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, as I understand it, in the case of the Martham Broad it is hoped, as a result of local discussions with conservationists, to finance the extra cost of resiting a proposed pump which will by-pass the broad.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, has my noble friend given an indication that the Government intend to accept the amendment that he says is on the Marshalled List in another place?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, it is my understanding that it is a Government amendment, so I think it will be accepted.

§ Lord Melchett
My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that it is not very much use putting an obligation on internal drainage boards to consult the Nature Conservancy Council if the boards know that they can only be prosecuted by, in effect, people who are their masters, and who are extremely unlikely to prosecute them? Can the noble Earl also say whether it is possible to challenge the Anglian Water Authority's decision that this pollution was not pollution when clearly to everyone else concerned it was?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, so far as the amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Bill is concerned, I look forward to debating it with the noble Lord when he comes back. So far as the remarks about the Anglian Water Authority are concerned, I shall indeed draw that to their attention.