COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 11 July 1995)

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 244 to 250 en bloc. At the same time I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 254, 282, 295, 296, 297 and 337, as well as to Amendments Nos. 295A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 295, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

1632 Amendments Nos. 248, 295, 297 and 337 introduce powers for the Secretary of State to direct the NRA and, in future, the agency, and for the Secretary of State for Scotland to direct SEPA, to undertake reviews of particular descriptions of consents for the purpose of making proposals to us for modifications to those consents.

Having considered those proposals, the Secretary of State could then give them effect through a direction; in other words, modification of a number of consents could be achieved by direction. We consider that these powers offer a useful means for the Secretary of State to deal more expeditiously with changes to consents where an issue of general policy arises that affects a number of consents. In our view that would offer substantial advantages in terms of facilitating any changes that might be required to consents where an issue of general policy has been shown to arise. I know that the NRA has also said that it welcomes the introduction of such a power. I should, however, also make clear that we envisage that exercise of this power would not be frequent and that modifications to individual consents would continue to be dealt with on a bilateral basis between the discharger and the regulator.

I want now to say something about our intentions in using these powers of direction. There are, of course, two powers: one to require the NRA to undertake a review of consents and then to come forward with proposals for modifications; the second to implement any changes to consents that may have been proposed.

As regards the first direction, we have previously demonstrated our acceptance in principle of the development of general clauses to be included in, consents. However, experience has also shown that such conditions need very careful consideration. We need to discuss a number of issues with the NRA but, subject to those discussions, our intention would be to make use of the power to issue a direction. We intend that the powers in Amendment No. 295 should be commenced two months after Royal Assent.

As regards the second direction—to implement any proposals made by the NRA—we cannot, of course, be expected to prejudge the outcome of such a review. We shall need, among other things, to hear the views of dischargers. And as I indicated, the Secretary of State must retain the right to modify the proposals that are brought forward.

Amendment No. 296 has a simple purpose. It is intended to ensure that in future, as under the existing legislation, the requirement for advertising of an application for a discharge consent can be waived if the agency considers such advertising to be unnecessary in the case of a particular application.

Amendments Nos. 282 and 249 provide a refinement of the deregulatory measures already in the Bill affecting discharge consent appeals. As originally drafted, the Bill provided that where an agency decides to revoke a consent, the revocation should not take effect until any appeal has been determined. It did not make the same provision for cases where an agency decides to modify a consent or impose conditions on a 1633 previously unconditional consent. On further consideration, however, we concluded that that was not the correct approach.

These amendments therefore bring decisions by the agencies to modify a discharge consent and to impose conditions on a previously unconditional consent into line with revocations so that the effect of such decisions will also be suspended pending determination or withdrawal of an appeal. We recognised, however, that there will be situations where it is necessary for revocations, modifications and conditions to come into force immediately. The amendments therefore allow the agencies to require the discharger to comply immediately with the effect of a decision where they consider this to be necessary to prevent or minimise pollution of controlled waters or harm to human health. We consider that these amendments offer a sensible way forward, providing a balance between the interests of dischargers and the need for changes to have immediate effect where there is a pressing environmental or health requirement for them to do so.

Amendments Nos. 244 to 247 and 250 amend the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and are designed to increase the operational flexibility of the water pollution control regime in Scotland. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanwell

My Lords, as the noble Earl spoke to Commons Amendment No. 295 and perhaps anticipated what I might say in moving Amendment No. 295A, it may be convenient for me to place on record the anxieties that underlie my amendment. When we come to it, it may not be necessary for me to move it, but it is appropriate that my concerns are on record.

Following a serious pollution incident, discharge consents, setting limits on the amount of certain named substances allowed into rivers and coastal waters, have recently been reviewed as to their content. It had been understood that discharge consents only authorised the discharge of substances that could reasonably be expected to be present in the specific effluent, and that the consent would not provide a defence if pollution was caused by other substances not mentioned in the consent. As I say, the efficacy of that system recently came into doubt. It is not just a matter of action by the NRA or, as it will he, of the environment agency. There is concern that there would be difficulty for people who are affected to pursue damage claims in the civil courts in that situation.

To clarify the position I was concerned to ensure that Ministers used their powers of direction to restore adequate environmental protection and give your Lordships and those concerned outside this place clear assurance that the issue will be progressed satisfactorily and river quality restored. I believe that that adequately puts on record the concerns that underlie my amendment.