| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1191
It being after half-past Ten o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker-- proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 February] and the resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 98.Clause 19
Orders for securing compliance with certain provisions
Amendment made : No. 141, in page 21, line 38, leave out or the commercial interests of any person'.-- [Mr. Howard.]
Clause 20
Procedural requirements
Amendment made : No. 142, in page 24, line 26, leave out or the commercial interests of any person'.-- [Mr. Howard.]
Clause 26
Protection of customer interests
Amendment made : No. 29, in page 29, line 2, leave out paragraph (a) and insert--
(a) to keep under review all matters appearing to the committee to affect the interests of the persons who are customers or potential customers of the companies allocated to the committee, to consult each company so allocated about such of those matters as appear to affect the interests of the customers or potential customers of that company and to make to a company so allocated all such
representations about any such matter as the committee considers appropriate ; '.-- [Mr. Howard.]
Clause 33
Publication of information and advice
Amendments made : No. 31, in page 37, line 32, at beginning insert--
( ) The Secretary of State may arrange for the publication, in such form and in such manner as he considers appropriate, of such information relating to any matter which is connected with the carrying out by a company holding an appointment under this Chapter of the functions of a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker as it may appear to him to be in the public interest to publish.'. No. 32, in page 37, line 38, at beginning insert the Secretary of State or'.
No. 33, in page 37, line 41, at end insert
Secretary of State or (as the case may be) of the'.
No. 34, in page 37, line 46, at end insert
Secretary of State or (as the case may be) of the'.-- [Mr. Howard.]
Clause 40
Financial conditions for water main acquisition
Amendments made : No. 15, in page 43, line 24, leave out from by' to end of line 27 and insert
the annual borrowing costs of a loan of the amount required for the provision of that main.
(3A) The annual borrowing costs of a loan of the amount required for the provision of a water main is the aggregate amount which would fall to be paid in any year by way of payments of interest and repayments of capital if an amount equal to so much of the costs reasonably incurred in providing
Column 1192
that main as were not incurred in the provision of additional capacity had been borrowed, by the water undertaker providing the main, on terms--(a) requiring interest to be paid and capital to be repaid in twelve equal annual instalments ; and
(b) providing for the amount of the interest to be calculated at such rate, and in accordance with such other provision, as may have been determined either by the undertaker with the approval of the Director or, in default of such a determination, by the Director.'. No. 16, in page 44, line 11, leave out subsection (7) and insert-- (6A) Where for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above any sums have been deposited with a water undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either
(a) by the undertaker with the approval of the Director ; or
(b) in default of a determination under paragraph (a) above, by the Director,
on every sum of 50p so deposited for every three months during which it remains in the hands of the undertaker.
(7) An approval or determination given or made by the Director for the purposes of subsection (3A) or (6A) above
(a) may be given or made in relation to the provision of a particular water main, in relation to the provision of mains of a particular description or in relation to the provision of water mains generally ; and
(b) may be revoked at any time except, in the case of an approval or direction for the purposes of subsection (3A) above, in relation to a water main that has already been provided.'.
No. 17, in page 44, line 24, leave out subsection (9).-- [Mr. Howard.]
Clause 42
Conditions of connection to water main
Amendment made : No. 18, in page 47, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert--
(3) Where for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) above any sums have been deposited with a water undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either
(a) by the undertaker with the approval of the Director ; or (
(b) in default of a determination under paragraph (a) above, by the Director ;
on every sum of 50p so deposited for every three months during which it remains in the hands of the undertaker ; and an approval or determination by the Director for the purposes of this subsection may be given or made in relation to a particular case or description of cases or generally and may be revoked at any time.'.-- [Mr. Howard.]
Clause 70
Financial conditions of sewer requisition
Amendment made : No. 19, in page 80, line 37, leave out from by' to end of line 40 and insert
the annual borrowing costs of a loan of the amount required for the provision of that sewer.
(3A) The annual borrowing costs of a loan of the amount required for the provision of a public sewer is the aggregate amount which would fall to be paid in any year by way of payments of interest and repayments of capital if an amount equal to so much of the costs reasonably incurred in providing that sewer as were not incurred in the provision of additional capacity had been borrowed, by the sewerage undertaker providing the sewer, on terms--
(a) requiring interest to be paid and capital to be repaid in twelve equal annual instalments ; and
(b) providing for the amount of the interest to be calculated at such rate, and in accordance with such other provision, as may have been determined either
Column 1193
by the undertaker with the approval of the Director or, in default of such a determination, by the Director.'.No. 20, in page 81, line 33, clause 70, leave out subsection (7) and insert --
(6A) Where for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above any sums have been deposited with a sewerage undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either--
(a) by the undertaker with the approval of the Director ; or
(b) in default of a determination under paragraph (a) above, by the Director,
on every sum of 50p so deposited for every three months during which it remains in the hands of the undertaker.
(7) An approval or determination given or made by the Director for the purposes of subsection (3A) or (6A) above
(a) may be given or made in relation to the provision of a particular public sewer, in relation to the provision of sewers of a particular description or in relation to the provision of sewers generally ;
and
(b) may be revoked at any time except, in the case of an approval or direction for the purposes of subsection (3A) above, in relation to a public sewer that has already been provided.'.
No. 21, in page 81, line 46, leave out subsection (9).-- [Mr. Howard.]
Clause 71
Performance of sewerage functions by local authorities etc.
Amendment made : No. 63, in page 82, line 3, leave out from out' to end of line 6 and insert
sewerage functions on that undertaker's behalf in relation to such area comprising the whole or any part of that authority's relevant area, together (where that authority are a local authority or an urban development corporation and the arrangements so provide) with parts of any adjacent relevant areas of other relevant authorities, as may be specified in the arrangements.'-- [Mr. Howard.]
Clause 86
Responsibility for listing particulars of nominated holding companies
Amendment made : No. 43, in page 94, leave out lines 17 to 34 and insert--
.--(1) Where--
(a) the same document contains listing particulars for securities of two or more nominated holding companies ; and
(b) any person's responsibility for any information included in the document is stated in the document to be confined to its inclusion as part of the listing particulars for securities of any one of those companies,
that person shall not be treated as responsible for that information in so far as it is stated in the document to form part of the listing particulars for securities of any other of those companies.
(2) Sections 150 and 154 of the 1986 Act (advertisements etc. in connection with listing applications) shall have effect in relation to any information issued for purposes connected with any securities of a nominated holding company as if any reference to a person's incurring civil liability included a reference to any other person being entitled, as against that person, to be granted a civil remedy or to rescind or repudiate any contract.'.
No. 44, in page 94, line 36, leave out and'.
No. 45, in page 94, leave out lines 39 to 42 and insert
Column 1194
"responsible" means responsible for the purposes of Part IV of the 1986 Act and "responsibility" shall be construed accordingly.'.-- [Mr. Howard.]Clause 91
Tax provisions
Amendments made : No. 46, in page 98, line 10, after (1)', insert
The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of section 2 of the Capital Allowances Act 1968 (writing-down allowance), by order make provision specifying--
(a) the amount to be taken for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section as the residue on the transfer date of any expenditure in relation to which any property vested in a successor company in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act is a relevant interest for the purposes of that section ; and
(b) the part of the period mentioned in subsection (3) of that section which is to be treated, in relation to any such property, as unexpired on that date.
(1A)'.
No. 47, in page 98, line 17, leave out from of' to had' in line 18 and insert
such amount as may be specified for the purposes of this subsection in an order made by the Secretary of State'.
No. 48, in page 98, line 20, at end insert--
(1B) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) or (1A) above in relation to any property of a successor company except with the consent of the Treasury and at a time when the company is wholly owned by the Crown ; and the power to make such an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall include power to make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different property or descriptions of property.'.-- [Mr. Howarth.]
Clause 104
Authority for discharges and other defences for the purposes of section
103
Mr. Boswell : I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 111, leave out line 47.
After the excitement of a few moments ago, I feel myself rather in the position of the dustcart after the Lord Mayor's show, though it would be indelicate if I were to speculate on which particular speeches require sweeping up. However, it is perhaps appropriate to start with that analogy because we now come to the parts of the Bill that are directed towards the control of pollution. This is an area in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken a keen interest. We are all anxious to ensure that standards are maintained and, wherever possible, raised.
The amendment would change slightly the existing provisions of the Control of Pollution Act, which, as the House will know, are reflected in the Bill. It is right and proper for me to acknowledge, though I do so with some regret, that there must be provision--as there is--for valid defences for causing pollution, provided that permission is very tightly controlled. Clearly, that applies to discharges in accordance with a consent issued by the National Rivers Authority or, in the case of this specific provision, to derogations from the penalties where there is an emergency, in order to avoid other dangers to the public. Perhaps I should say, en passant, that I am very pleased with Government amendment No. 64, which will further confine what might be called the emergency excuse.
Column 1195
It is right to provide for eventualities and to provide that these discharges follow the requirements of the National Rivers Authority. It is also right that there should be clarity for operators who discharge within consents and that they may do so without fear of prosecution. But, equally, I think that it will be agreed by all that there should be no easy loopholes--certainly no avoidable loopholes-- in the legislation. There should be no way in which those who might pollute our rivers may do so with impunity.Hon. Members--certainly those who served on the Standing Committee--will recall some of the debate on this clause. I am grateful for the opportunity to return to that debate, not least because the Government undertook to reflect on the very serious points that were made then. It should be remembered that the basis of clause 104 is no more than a continuation of the current law. The defence is already available under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Nevertheless, real problems have been drawn to my attention by the water authorities and I believe that it is right to ventilate them further. The amendment refers to waste disposal sites. Elsewhere in the clause there are references to mines and ships, but I shall confine my remarks to the issue of disposal licences. It should be made clear that where an operator wishes to obtain a site for a tip for disposal, his licence comes from the local authority, not from the water authority. I welcome the provision for the local authority to consult the water authority on such an application, which will carry forward into the new arrangements after privatisation. Once the operator has obtained the disposal licence from the local authority, he can set up his waste disposal site. The House will be well aware of the problems that some sites cause. We are all aware of the recent report by the Select Committee on the Environment and of the articles in The Times this month. It is the experience of the water authorities that have contacted me that there are frequent examples of watercourses being directly polluted as a result of the seepage of toxic materials in leaching from such sites.
The Anglian water authority has drawn my attention specifically to three such recent incidents in its area--one at Rushton, which is in the county but not the constituency that I represent. Others are cropping up all the time. Such pollution incidents damage fisheries and damage or threaten the public water supply because this pollution is, as it were, unplanned for, is sometimes not easy to detect quickly and can be insidious. It is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that under clause 53 the water undertakers themselves will, for the first time, be guilty of a criminal offence if they supply unfit water for human consumption. Therefore, they, too, will have a close interest in avoiding the sort of pollution to which I am referring.
The House will certainly be aware that the problems with the sites arise mainly from the lack of proper provision and the lack of effective supervision of after-care arrangements by the disposal operators, especially where the site has been closed. It would be wrong in principle if such operators were also to have a special cast-iron defence because of their possession of a disposal licence, which is what the amendment seeks to strike out. As I have said, there are similar concerns over vessels and abandoned mines. These are real issues that worry hon. Members of all parties.
Column 1196
The water authorities have enough to do in trying to protect our rivers without this extra burden on them. Only last week I was given to understand that the Anglian water authority, which covers the greater part of my constituency, was faced with a major pollution incident in Suffolk. Pig slurry had gone into the river, affecting 30 miles, and killing thousands of fish. Tragically it was in a river that the authority had only recently restocked. No doubt there will be proceedings against the farmer involved, but I gather that that farmer has already been prosecuted four times. The water authority suggested that, when dealing with the overall issue of pollution, it might be wise to consider a provision for an injunction procedure as opposed simply to dealing with incidents on an ad hoc basis through prosecution.In moving the amendment I put down a marker of continuing concern. I know that the Minister has expressed his own anxiety about these problems. I hope that he will note my suggestion, listen to the debate and, I hope, return with something before the final proceedings on the Bill.
Mr. Boateng : The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is, in more ways than one, the carthorse that comes along after the Lord Mayor's show. Not only does the hon. Gentleman follow through today's proceedings and the major debate that we had on previous amendments, but he picks up, in identical terms, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), which I moved in Committee.
This is a modest little amendment. Committee members may remember that we proposed it in a spirit of good will--there was not much acrimony or argument between the parties, although such days did exist. To give Jack his jacket, the Minister responded in kind, which is why we look forward to hearing from him what positive steps he plans to take, having had time for mature reflection.
This is an important little amendment because it seeks to overcome a gap in the existing law and the fact that the present site regulations on waste disposal are seriously defective. The amendment says that there should be no exception from prosecution if the discharge of polluting waters takes place from the site where a disposal licence has been given under section 5 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It is as simple as that, and is not-- as was rather uncharitably suggested by the Minister before he fully appreciated the purport of the amendment--a duplication of controls. The amendment does not require the water authorities' controls to be applied through both the waste disposal licence and the discharge consent. He was concerned about that and said that he was not persuaded that anything was to be gained from such duplication. Nothing would be gained, which is precisely why the amendment does not propose such duplication.
The amendment merely says that there should be no automatic exemption where leachates discharge to land or percolate through surrounding rock strata and pollute the water supply. In such a case the prevention of pollution is clearly intended to be covered by the waste disposal licence. There does not appear to be any undue difficulty in stating that an offence could still occur in such circumstances, when, because of the gap in the existing laws--due to the withdrawal by the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980 of the powers to issue
Column 1197
regulations under section 6 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974--it is possible for abuse to take place and for the public to be without proper remedy. That has happened.The result of the unintended gap in the law is that a waste disposal authority can bring criminal proceedings against a discharger of pollutant only if waste has been deposited when the pollution is taking place. The chance of a waste disposal officer happening to visit the site just as this was occurring, who was able to give evidence that, as the waste was deposited the leachates or overflow was occurring, is--as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could imagine, if you were to apply your mind to such an unpleasant course of events--unlikely to result in many successful prosecutions. We are told that the reason for the gap between the Committee and Report stages is to allow the Minister time to reflect and to consult his advisers. I notice that not many papers have been passed to the Minister during the speech of the hon. Member for Daventry or during my speech. I see the Minister pointing to his head : that is only small consolation. I do not want to be offensive to the Minister, but we can take only small satisfaction from his gesturing to the size of his cerebral matter. In any event, I hope that the absence of passed notes denotes that the amendment is wholly acceptable and in the public interest.
10.45 pm
Unanimity has broken out in the House, as it did in Committee. We hope the Minister will respond in the spirit that has caused that unanimity to break out.
We want to give the Minister a warning. When we moved the amendment in Committee, we wanted to give him a lifeline. He was getting himself into hot water at the time--scalded is the word that springs to mind. He is not unaccustomed to that, but we wanted to give him a way out. We wanted him to be able to show that he was, after all, the consumers' friend, a man genuinely concerned about the environment. So we offered him this simple, easy little amendment in a spirit of helpfulness. In Committee, he put his hand halfway out ; we should like him to stretch it right out tonight.
The Minister should bear in mind the warning given by the Earl of Rosebery all those years ago at the time of the formation of the London county council. It concerned the significance of water in the affairs of our nation.
"Water",
he said,
"is one of those points which have wrecked a powerful government before now and may wreck governments again."
The Minister should keep that in the forefront of his mind when considering his response to this little debate, and seek to salvage something from the wreckage.
Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : I brought a particular problem to the Minister's attention in Committee. We bottled the problem, to show what it was about. This amendment would deal with that problem in the future, although we can do nothing about the past.
The Minister promised to discuss with other Departments how to deal with this problem from the past. I refer to discharges from closed collieries. Yesterday we discussed the restructuring of the mining industry in Committee. When the Government talk about restructuring, they mean more closures. It is imperative that we deal with the problem now at its source. I want to ask the
Column 1198
Minister about the discharges from Bullhouse colliery. The Minister promised that he would discuss ways of dealing with that problem with the Department of the Environment.We must recognise the extent of the Government's powers as a result of their majority in this House, but we should also recognise the power of the public who are speaking out openly against the Bill. If the Bill becomes an Act, the chances of the River Don being cleaned by British Coal or the NRA would be remote.
I spoke to Gordon Jones, the chairman of Yorkshire Water, and three of his four directors at 5 pm today. I was tied up in the Chamber for a while, but he told me that simply to clean the river to comply with EC standards on drinking water would cost £140 million. That gives us some idea of the massive task facing a privatised Yorkshire Water. There will be little room for financial manoeuvre to clean up the river. The river can be cleaned. I have examined the minutes of meetings held by South Yorkshire county council to discuss the problem. It admitted that it would be a costly process. It would cost about £300,000 to be effective and would require running costs of around £130,000 a year.
That may seem a lot of money to clear that stretch of the river, but correspondence from a constituent of mine, Mr. S. N. Crofts, puts the matter into perspective. Mr. Crofts, who has been following our proceedings very carefully, wrote to me on 9 January expessing his concerns about the Bill. In his latest letter he says that he has not written since then because all kinds of things have been happening in the House, which is true in many respects. Mr. Crofts brings to my attention a list of companies which are regularly, under licence, discharging toxic waste into the River Don. That pollution is in addition to the discharges from Bullhouse colliery.
I am glad that Mr. Crofts has written to me. I will be visiting him because he has kept records since 1985 and has produced graphs which show clearly where and when the pollution occurs. That information would be very useful. He also provides the Yorkshire water authority with information about the river. As the secretary of the Salmon and Trout Association in south Yorkshire, he has a strong vested interest in the quality of the water. In his most recent letter, Mr. Crofts points out clearly what could happen if the river was cleaned up : "where industry or mine water does not affect the river and where trout and grayling abound along with kingfishers, dippers, moorhens and herons along with all the waterside plants when clean unpolluted water is available."
Amendment No. 98 would help to affect the river waters and improve the condition described by Mr. Crofts. This is a small amendment and it would reflect well on the Government if they would accept it. It would show that they are sincere in their views about the cleanliness of river water. I had hoped that the Minister would rise to accept the amendment because we had won through. If the Government will not accept the amendment, I hope that the Minister will provide an explanation. I hope that he will also explain what progress is being made with other Departments in relation to cleansing the River Don of the discharges to which I have referred.
Ms. Walley : I look forward to hearing whether the Minister has any assurances to give following our earlier discussions--which he has now had an opportunity fully
Column 1199
to consider--particularly as the amendment is in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).If polluted discharges occur at a site where there is a disposal licence granted under section 5 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, there should be no exceptions to prosecution. We acknowledge, as I trust the Minister does, the genuine concern that exists among the public that there should be integrated pollution control. The amendment addresses a loophole in the 1974 Act. If no opportunity is offered by the Bill to close it in respect of disposal sites and licences, there is a real risk that any future legislation resulting from the current consultation paper on waste disposal will, far from being integrated, be likely to go off at an even greater tangent. Existing legislation must be tightened up, and that tightening up should be reflected in the Bill also.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) drew attention to the anxieties of those living in the vicinity of waste disposal sites, who are acutely aware of the problems that pollution creates. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) argued that the amendment is wholly acceptable and in the public interest. I urge the Minister to recognise that the Government's credibility, in claiming to be an Administration concerned about pollution control, is at stake.
Mr. Moynihan : The debate has been helpful, not least in respect of the poetic contribution of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who, in characteristic style, sought to ensure that I extend my arm further towards the arguments made by both sides of the House and accept the amendment. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my arm, which is already half extended, is moving rapidly towards the three quarter mark. I say that, because the points made by hon. Members were important and relevant, and because I recognise the water authorities' concern that existing arrangements are not operating satisfactorily. That point was made also in Committee.
The only reason why I hold back from fully extending my arm is to be found in the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made the House aware that the Environment Committee has just published its report on toxic wastes, which deals with waste disposal sites and has an obvious bearing on the subject. We have not yet finished studying that report. Moreover, in the context of proposals for integrated pollution control, consideration is still being given to the overall regulation of waste disposal sites and to the links between land and water pollution.
We are still carefully considering the implications of policies affecting the issues that are the subject of the amendment. However, I assure the House that we are keen to ensure the best practical protection of water quality from pollution by waste disposal and landfill sites. If further strengthening is possible in the context of the Bill, we shall pursue it.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) raised an important point about discharges from collieries, particularly the Bullhouse colliery. I had the good fortune to discuss the matter with him, and I mentioned that I would provide him with comprehensive answers and additional information about the grants we were discussing in Committee. I shall hurry that along in
| Next Section
| Home Page |