| Previous Section | Home Page |
Winterton, Mrs Ann
Wood, Timothy
Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Nicholas Baker and
Mr. Irvine Patnick.
Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 16
Duty of enforcing authority to consult harbour authorities
.--(1) Where the carrying on of a prescribed process will involve the release of any substance into a harbour, the enforcing authority shall consult the harbour authority before granting or varying an authorisation.
(2) In this section--
"harbour" and "harbour authority" have the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964 ; and
"vary", in relation to an authorisation, means imposing further conditions or varying or rescinding conditions.'.-- [Mr. Knapman.] Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Column 1102
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : With this it will be convenient to take the following : Government amendment No. 37. Amendment No. 292, in clause 6, page 8, line 11, at end insert-- (5A) where the authorisation is to cover a discharge to water it should contain a specific section notifying the operator of the requirements of the National Rivers Authority in relation to that discharge in relation to both the standards to be met and the monitoring required.'.
Government amendments Nos. 81 to 87, 62 and 88.
Mr. Knapman : New clause 16 would require enforcing authorities to consult harbour authorities before authorising the release of substances into the harbour. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that harbour authorities--that is, those within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1964-- have powers and duties in regard to the management, maintenance and improvement of their harbours. Nearly all such authorities have a duty to dredge their harbours, primarily for the safety and convenience of navigation. As so graphically described by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), this spoil has to be disposed of. This can be done on land, and I understand that until now a licence has been required under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I understand that henceforth a licence will be required under part II of the Bill.
The alternative is to dump at sea, and that, too, would require a licence. Dumping at sea is generally rather more economical than dumping on land, but the granting of a licence for the purpose may depend on the chemical composition of the dredgings. Chemical interaction takes place in the water column when fresh and salt water mix. This frequently results in substances released in harbours accumulating in sediments to levels far higher than those which were initially released.
It is logical, therefore, that any harbour authority should be concerned about the releases of substances into the water within the harbour, and the new clause recognises that concern. It would require the enforcing authority, before granting authorisation under the new system of control, to consult the harbour authority. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the duty would not impose any serious administrative burden on the enforcing authority. I shall welcome his consideration of the clause. In Committee, he was helpful in accepting amendments when he could, and he put us down gently when he could not.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : I am flattered that my humble amendment, No. 292, has been grouped with new clause 16. I have hitherto agreed entirely with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has said in this place.
I search for a constituency interest. Whatever may happen to the ozone layer or whatever may be the greenhouse effect, I doubt that Basingstoke will have to deal with the problems. I am bewildered that my amendment has been grouped with the new clause, but that having happened I have the opportunity to make what I believe is a valid point. It is one which I made in Committee, and it concerns integrated pollution control--the principle, the system, its application and the abiding concern of industry that this will not, in effect, be the one-stop shop that the Government have hitherto assured us will be the position.
Column 1103
I do not wish to be repetitive. Many of those who are now here were members of the Committee and heard me advance the argument that I am presenting to the House. There is concern that any particular industrial process will still be subject to the overriding and overruling command of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, and that the National Rivers Authority, the privatised water utilities, the waste regulatory authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will still be involved in the regulatory process. Industry is concerned that bureaucracy is being created. Although the principle is sound, the fear is that the wealth and job-creating processes will suffer accordingly. Therefore, the amendment seeks simplification and a lightening of the burden.That is the basis of the argument behind amendment No. 292.
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier) : I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for the way in which they spoke to new clause 16 and amendment No. 292. I shall reply briefly. I must apologise to my hon. Friends at the outset because I shall not be accepting either the new clause or the amendment. I am genuinely sorry because I know how successful they were in Committee in introducing amendments that proved to be acceptable to the Government. I was happy to accept a number of them in their entirety, without having to say that I would return to them on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud explained why it is necessary that harbour authorities should be consulted when the following of a prescribed process will involve the direct release of a substance into a harbour. I am pleased to say that schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe consultees in regulations. In that sense, the new clause is otiose. If it is right that harbour authorities should be consulted, that will be prescribed in the regulations. The regulations are the right place to define statutory consultees. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the new clause because I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of his argument. I think that there is a connection between the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the new clause introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. Both concern water, the NRA and harbours, possibly, tenuous though that connection might be. Clause 25 meets the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. It establishes that HMIP will be the lead body with which industry must interface. HMIP will consult the NRA, which will then have the power to veto an application if it considers that releases from the process will contribute to a failure to achieve any water quality objective or to require the inclusion of conditions in the authorisation that HMIP grants.
Mr. Knapman : I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I agree that Basingstoke is not likely to have a harbour. That is just about as certain as saying that neither he nor I will make wet Tories. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister for his comments.
Column 1104
As the House has placed certain duties upon harbour authorities, I hope that the authorities will be consulted under regulations in due course. In view of my hon. Friend's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
Levels of radioactivity
( )--(1) The inspector appointed under section 11A(1) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 as amended shall have as one of his functions the undertaking on an annual basis of a review of the levels of radioactivity experienced by persons employed in any establishment maintained for the purpose of reprocessing radioactive material, or for the generation of electricity using any radioactive process, and, where he considers it appropriate, any other establishment in which research or other processes involving radioactive materials are undertaken, other than an establishment to which section 14(2) of that Act as amended applies.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the inspector shall examine relevant levels of radioactivity at each such establishment on an annual basis.'.-- [Ms. Walley.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ms. Walley : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to consider also Government amendments Nos. 1 to 23.
Ms. Walley : I shall be brief, in the interests of making progress. The Bill has presented us with many opportunities and it is disappointing that the Government have decided not to make some real improvements to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. The way in which that measure has been dealt with is evidence of the Government's piecemeal approach.
There should be tighter controls for those who are exposed to certain levels of radioactivity, and the new clause is a first step towards introducing those necessary controls. It calls for an inspector to review the levels of radioactivity that are experienced by persons employed in areas where there are radioactive materials, subject to the exceptions which are set out.
The new clause is a starting point. It does not commit the Government to controls that we would like to see, but it paves the way for lower exposure levels. It is an issue which came to the fore during the consideration of the Bill in Committee. We look to the International Commission on Radiological Protection to recommend lower exposure limits, but there is much that can be done nationally. There is much that industry can do, especially as there is uncertainty about the risks of radiation.
It is well known that there are genuine fears that the risks of radiation are four to five times higher than those that were previously recognised, and that the United States National Academy of Sciences has suggested that the risks are six to eight times higher than those that were estimated in 1977. All this needs to be reflected in standards that are adopted nationally. We believe that the new clause could go some way towards bringing together environmental concerns about this most important issue.
It is worth referring to the implications of the Gardner report, which was published during the Committee stage. It identified two groups of workers who faced the highest risk of having a child who developed leukaemia. It is important that the report's
recommendations are taken on
Column 1105
board, certainly by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but also by other Departments, including those responsible for health and safety in industry. It is important to note that, for the first time, the trade unions involved in the industry have joined with the various environmental groups to force the pace for changes in the limits for exposure levels. The new clause would provide the opportunity to do that.8 pm
I shall deal briefly with the Government amendments. I refer the Under- Secretary to our debates in Committee and the points raised as a result of the experience of officers in the metropolitan borough of Dudley in respect of the Pear Tree site. There appears to be a loophole in existing legislation because local authorities are not, as of right, consulted when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution authorises the disposal of radioactive substances. Dudley council had to seek a judicial review to get its views represented. I seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the promises and undertakings given in Committee have been fulfilled and that it is now possible for me to tell the leader of the Dudley council, with absolute certainty, that section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 has been changed so that local authorities will have an automatic right to a hearing before the Secretary of State takes the specified action under section 11(1). It is an important issue which has arisen out of the practical experiences of local authorities. If the
Under-Secretary cannot give the assurance that I seek, I hope that it will be given in another place.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I accept the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, but I assure her that there is no category of substances or waste that receives so much attention and such extensive monitoring as radioactive substances.
I cannot accept new clause 21, for the good reason that its proposals duplicate existing legislation. The functions proposed by the new clause would be carried out by inspectors appointed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. However, those functions are already carried out and effectively enforced under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985, made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The regulations deal, among other things, with dosages to classified workers and with dosages generally in the workplace. They explicitly cover the substance of the new clause. They are enforced by the inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive, which reports to the Health and Safety Commission, which in turn reports to the Secretary of State for Employment. The new clause would duplicate existing legislation and I urge the House to reject it.
The Government amendments to part V are all technical and rectify minor omissions revealed in Committee or improve consistency between part V and other parts of the Bill.
I shall touch on one matter that involves local authorities as that was the substance of the hon. Lady's remarks. Although clause 85 amends the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to provide that copies of enforcement and prohibition notices shall be sent to the local authorities that received a copy of the section 1 registration and the section 6 authorisation, it does not provide that copies shall go to authorities that received section 3 registrations in respect of mobile plant. Similarly, no provision is made for other public authorities that
Column 1106
receive copies of notices to be informed of their withdrawal. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 rectify those omissions. There are other similar amendments, which I do not think will cause any controversy. I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury) : My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on- Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has had to leave the House, so I shall briefly respond to the Minister's remarks. He said that the new clause duplicates existing legislation. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned today, and which she also put before the Committee some weeks ago, highlights the problem--certainly with the working of existing provisions even if they are adequate in themselves. I urge the Minister to reconsider the need for local authorities to be consulted and informed about what is happening in their areas. They should have the right to express an opinion and to have it taken into account before any decision is made. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously and keep a careful watch on what is happening, because it is causing concern to some local authorities. It is important that they have the right to be involved in such decisions.
As my hon. Friend is not here, we cannot withdraw the motion. However, we will not press it to a Division.
Question put and negatived.
New Clause 23
Transfer of Functions of Secretary of State
( ) --(1) The Secretary of State may by Order transfer such of his functions under this Act as he considers appropriate, including any of the functions specified in subsection (3), below which are vested in him under this Act, to any body established in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) The Secretary of State may by Order within two years of the passing of this Act establish an Environmental Protection Executive with a regional structure corresponding in area to any regional authorities established in England, Scotland and Wales.
(3) The functions of any body established under this section may by Order made by the Secretary of State include
(a) the promotion of preventive measures against pollution, clean technologies and the development of integrated pollution control generally ;
(b) the prescription of processes falling within national control in accordance of Part I of this Act ;
(c) the issuing of advice as to best practice in the management of waste, including hazardous waste, in accordance with the provisions of Part II below ;
(d) the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste ; (e) the monitoring of national standards as to pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance, litter and substances and organisms falling within Parts V and VI below ;
(f) the promotion with local authorities of Environmental Impact Analysis in planningmatters ;
(g) the undertaking of long-term research on environmental and ecological matters ;
(h) the promotion of public education as to environmental matters, where appropriate in liaison with local education authorities ; (i) the co- ordination of improvements to the environment in inner city areas, including the reclamation of urban land ;
(j) the exercise on behalf of the Secretary of State of functions under sections 116 or 117 in relation to toxic waste ;
Column 1107
(k) the monitoring of activities connected with dumping at sea as referred to in section 119 below ;(l) the provision of advice and recommendations as to financial assistance for environmental purposes in accordance with section 122 below ; and
(m) the promotion of international co-operation on environmental measures and the dissemination of best practice.
(4) The Executive shall have such a membership as appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of organisations concerned with environmental, scientific and conservation matters, and of local authorities.
(5) Any order issued under subsection (2) above shall include provision for the incorporation as freestanding specialist persons or bodies within any body established under this section of the chief inspector and his staff, the National Rivers Authority and such other bodies or Departments of State, or parts thereof, as the Secretary of State may determine, and any such body shall have such powers of overall direction and the issuing of guidance, and such duties to promote co-operation and joint working, as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.-- [Mr. Murphy.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Murphy : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take the following : New clause 24-- Functions of local authorities -- ( )--(1) For the purposes of protecting and enhancing the environment of their areas, the functions of local authorities as specified in this Act shall include--
(a) the promotion, protection and enhancement of the natural and physical environment in their areas, in liaison with national and regional bodies with environmental regulatory functions ; (b) the monitoring and auditing of the quality of the local environment in accordance with standards established under this Act ; or by the National Executive or the Secretary of State ;
(c) the provision of public information on environmental matters relevant to the local area ;
(d) the co-ordination of other local authority functions for the purpose of enhancing the local environment ;
(e) the local enforcement of requirements in relation to integrated pollution control, waste management, statutory nuisance and such other standards as may be determined under this Act ;
(f) the maintenence of such public registers or authorisations, applications and infringements of standards as may be required under this Act ; and
(g) the undertaking of environmental impact assessments into local processes capable of causing pollution or likely to arise from developmant applications.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of any financial year in which the functions specified under this section, or otherwise under this Act, are exercisable by local authorities satisfy himself that the resources available to those authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of those functions.
(3) The functions of local authorities under this section may be exercised through one or more committees of elected members of the authority.'.
New clause 25-- Protection from hazardous and other wastes -- ( )--(1) This section shall have effect for the purpose of maintaining and improving the protection of persons and of the environment from hazardous or other waste or injurious substances or articles.
(2) The Secretary of State shall exercise any powers vested in him under the relevant provisions of Part VIII or under this
Column 1108
section for the purposes of securing the objectives specified in subsection (1) above, and in particular he shall, whether by regulations or otherwise--(a) prohibit or restrict the exportation from the United Kingdom of any substance or article specified under section 116(1) below ; (b) prohibit or restrict the exportation from the United Kingdom of substances or articles where he is satisfied that such substances or articles are to be used in connection with any process which presents a risk of causing pollution of the environment and he is not satisfied that the competence of the persons concerned or as the case may be the regulation of such processes in the country concerned is likely to eliminate so far as reasonably practicable such risk ; (c) prohibit or restrict the importation of waste for direct landfill ;
(d) require any licensing authority to refuse to grant any licence application which conflicts with any relevant Ministerial Declaration of a North Sea Conference extant at the time of the application, or which seeks authorisation for activities giving rise to a risk of pollution of the marine environment or the living resources which it supports ;
(e) review within one year the maximum levels of penalties specified under sections 116(10) and 117(5)(e) below ;
(f) introduce requirements for labelling applicable to identified producers of waste ; and
(g) require to be undertaken, and issue guide-lines in respect of, a national audit of toxic waste.'.
Mr. Murphy : New clause 23 refers to the setting up of an environmental protection executive with a regional structure. We dealt with that issue on several occasions in Committee. Such a body would deal with preventive measures against pollution, with integrated pollution control in general, with research, and with co-ordinating the various functions affecting pollution. It would be made up of experts, scientists and representatives of local authorities. It would release the Secretary of State from many burdens. It would effectively mean a decentralisation of control over pollution and other matters in the United Kingdom.
New clause 24 would reflect that proposal at local level. Local authorities would be used as local environmental protection agencies. When local authorities were established 150 years ago, they dealt with sanitation and housing, so they actually set the ball rolling on environmental protection. Over the years they have developed expertise in the collection and disposal of waste ; in the cleaning of streets and roads ; in the monitoring of pollution of the air and sea ; in noise abatement ; in transport, planning and housing ; and in leisure and tourism. They have a unique experience and expertise in environmental matters. They would be ideally suited to be local environmental protection agencies. Above all, they would be accountable to the electorate.
New clause 25 would strengthen the Secretary of State's position with regard to hazardous and toxic wastes, especially imports and exports. We spent many an hour in Committee dealing with the problems of imported toxic waste. It is a matter of considerable public concern, which was evidenced by the Karin B and the exports of Canadian PCBs to ReChem in my constituency in south Wales. There is no doubt that on both those occasions there was considerable public dismay at the fact that advanced countries, not Third-world countries, were dumping some of the most poisonous wastes known to man in these islands. There need to be the strongest possible controls on such importations.
Column 1109
We are also worried about imports to landfill sites. New clause 25 gives the Secretary of State greater power to ban the importation of toxic waste to such sites. The Select Committee on the Environment proposed a complete ban on such imports. For example, we heard about the 75,000 tonnes of PCB--contaminated waste on its way to the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry site from West Germany via East Germany. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked me to mention that case, and I gladly do so. The tremendous upheavals and changes in eastern Europe, which had a much laxer regime for toxic waste, mean that waste that would have been dumped in landfill sites in eastern Europe can no longer be dumped there and could end up in Britain unless we have the strongest possible legislation to ensure that we deal only with the waste that we ourselves generate. That is a major issue. I know that the Minister has considerable sympathy with much of what I have said and I look forward to his reply.Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : The present structure for the management of aqueous and solid waste and aerial discharges from factories is fragmented. We welcomed the establishment of the National Rivers Authority last year, but air pollution and toxic waste disposal from industry are matters for local authorities and HMIP, and the standards that prevail are variable. It is a matter of regret for many hon. Members that the Government have not adopted in the Bill the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment and based the WRAs on regional authorities rather than the county and district councils in Wales.
But more important is the role of HMIP in the control of air pollution. We are all aware of the shortcomings of HMIP. It is an inadequate and understaffed body where morale is poor. It is overloaded with responsibilities and the Bill gives it massive additional responsibilities.
New clause 23 outlines the structure and responsibilities of an environmental protection executive. It is a concise formulation, giving wide-ranging responsibilities. It would be an umbrella organisation for the NRA, local authorities and so on. Many European countries have such an agency. The United States established its Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. We are 20 years behind some countries.
New clause 24 complements new clause 23 and defines the responsibilities of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke eloquently of the role of local authorities over the centuries in providing water and sanitation services and caring for the local environment generally. New clause 24 underlines their role as local environmental protection agencies. 8.15 pm
New clause 25 deals with the management of hazardous waste, a matter which has so far received insufficient attention. We try to manage our rivers reasonably. With tens of thousands of incidents of water pollution every year, I am not happy with our standards, but at least we have an infrastructure for the management of our rivers and, over the decades, our standards have been gradually improving. But our philosophy on the disposal of solid waste has always been "Out of sight, out of mind". Once it has been dumped somewhere, we think very little about it. But we are now having cases of contaminated land and of
Column 1110
leachates contaminating water courses and possibly even water supplies. We should look much more carefully at the management of hazardous waste. Some of the waste that is dumped is as toxic as nuclear waste, yet we would never consider dumping nuclear waste as landfill. We also need to look carefully at co-disposal in Britain--the practice of disposing of toxic waste alongside domestic refuse. Other countries do not do that. It is banned in the United States and the European Commission may soon issue a directive banning it here, too.New clause 25 also seeks to prohibit the importation of waste for direct landfill. It is appalling that waste from countries where its use as landfill is illegal should come here to be disposed of on the cheap. This is a massive growth industry in Britain. Our imports of toxic waste have increased tenfold in the past decade simply because it is cheap to get rid of it here, as our standards are laxer than elsewhere.
Waste can be treated by various solidification processes. Unfortunately, some are unreliable and need to be carefully supervised and monitored. Treated waste may be more acceptable, but all countries should eventually treat their own waste and develop facilities for its disposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen referred to the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry where a lot of waste is presently imported for landfill. It has contracts with Swiss companies to import what in Switzerland is classified as special waste but which here is not classified as hazardous waste. There is a difference in definition. Recently, it was about to sign contracts for the importation of a massive cargo from West Germany which had previously been destined for East Germany. There is a tremendous danger in the next few years of our taking West German exports of toxic waste as it can no longer dump waste cheaply in East Germany and will look for sites elsewhere. Britain could be a prime site as it is so cheap to dispose of waste here.
In the last sentence of new clause 25 we call for a national audit of toxic and all other waste because if we consider the issue nationally, we shall develop disposal facilities commensurate with the national problem. I am thinking in particular about incinerators. On Monday, the Minister talked about the incineration of sewage sludge and said that finding sites for such incinerators will become a major problem in the next 10 years.
If we had not had the experience of ReChem in Pontypool things might have been better. That incinerator was built to service industry in south Wales, the south-west and the midlands. It has become an international facility and its main business is the importation and incineration of polychlorinated biphenyls. The plant has gained a bad reputation among everyone who thinks anything of the environment.
The problem with siting incinerators in the north-east and on the east coast is that the public will fear that they will be used for the incineration of toxic waste.
New clause 25 does not go quite far enough. The Labour party thinks that we should ban the importation of all toxic waste unless it can be demonstrated to be in the wider international interest to import it.
I commend the three new clauses to the House. They would set up an environmental protection executive, give a more explicit role to local authorities and improve the management of hazardous waste.
| Next Section
| Home Page |