HC Deb 28 November 1988 vol 142 cc135-7W
Mr. Hinchliffe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to ensure that all breaches of European Commission directives by the Yorkshire water authority in respect of mercury and cadmium in river sediment are required to be reported to that authority's water quality advisory group.

Mr. Moynihan

[holding answer 25 November 1988]: It is for Yorkshire water authority to decide what information it supplies to its water quality advisory group.

Mr. Hinchliffe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking in respect of the breaches by the Yorkshire water authority of European Commission directives concerning mercury and cadmium in river sediment and pollution by the pesticide Lindane.

Mr. Moynihan

[holding answer 25 November 1988]: On the basis of the periodic returns supplied by Yorkshire water authority, the Department does not consider that the requirements of the relevant European Community directives governing discharges of these substances have been breached.

Mr. Hinchliffe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the discharges of significant quantities of restricted chemicals into the river system by Hickson and Welch Ltd., Castleford, Staveley Chemicals, Chesterfield, Coalite Ltd., Bolsover and Thomas Bolton and Johnson Ltd., Wakefield.

Mr. Moynihan

[holding answer 25 November 1988]: None recently, but I am aware of the concern over some industrial effluents being discharged into Yorkshire rivers. Representations about particular effluents would generally be made to the Yorkshire water authority which is responsible for controlling industrial discharges to rivers in its area. I understand that the water authority is investigating these and other industrial discharges with a view to securing improvements.

Mr. Hinchliffe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research is currently being conducted by his Department into the illegal contamination of water by pesticides.

Mr. Moynihan

[holding answer 25 November 1988]: The following research is currently being conducted by the Department into the contamination of water by pesticides.

  1. 1. Effects of disinfection on organics in drinking water. Contractor-Water Research Centre (WRC). End date March 1989. Contract amount £343,000.
  2. 2. Pesticides in drinking water; sources and supplies. Contractor-WRC. End date December 1989. Contract amount £168,000.
  3. 3. Groundwater pollution by organic solvents. Contractor-NERC/British Geological Survey. End date March 1989. Contract amount £128,000.
  4. 4. Analysis of potentially dangerous substances in United Kingdom waters. Contractor-SAC Scientific. End date March 1989. Contract amount £27,000.
  5. 5. Sources and fates of synthetic organics. Contractor-WRC. End date March 1990. Contract amount £181,000.
  6. 6. Standards for dangerous substances in surface waters. Contractor-WRC. End date March 1989. Contract amount £197,000.
  7. 7. Total impact assessment of pollutants in river basins. Contractor-NERC/Institute of Hydrology. End date June 1989. Contract amount £163,000.
  8. 8. Organic contaminants in rivers. Contractor-WRC. End date March 1990. Contract amount £276,000.

Mr. Hinchliffe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has concerning the illegal contamination of water supplies by pesticides.

Mr. Moynihan

[holding answer 25 November 1988]: Routine monitoring by water undertakers has revealed minute traces of pesticides in some drinking water supplies. Government medical advisers are satisfied that the levels found do not constitute a health risk.

As far as I am aware the levels arise from the use of pesticides approved under the control of pesticides regulations. I have no evidence to suggest that contamination arises from the illegal use of pesticides.

Mr. Hinchliffe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the European Commission regarding the pesticide standard within the drinking water directive.

Mr. Moynihan

[holding answer 25 November 1988]: The Government consider that the pesticide parameter in the EC drinking water directive is not scientifically based, and is impracticable for a number of reasons. On several occasions since 1985 the Government have made representations to the Commission for a review.

Mr. Hinchliffe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will as a matter of urgency introduce legislation to provide for a prohibition power to enable water authorities to stop polluters from discharging effluent into water courses.

Mr. Howard

[holding answer 25 November 1988]: It is a criminal offence under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to discharge polluting effluent into a water course without a consent from a water authority or the Secretary of State.

Mr. Hinchliffe

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will as a matter of urgency bring forward legislation to ensure that polluters are given a duty to notify all new pollutants in their effluent to the responsible water authority, to enable water authorities to revise the consent without financial penalty.

Mr. Howard

[holding answer 25 November 1988]: No. Such legislation would be redundant. A discharger who adds to his discharge a new pollutant which materially adds to the noxious quality of the discharge, and which is not covered by the consent, will be guilty of an offence. Before adding such a pollutant he must therefore secure from the water authority a variation to the consent. The water authority will suffer no financial penalty if it varies or refuses to vary the consent.