Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

The principle that ‘the polluter should bear the cost of pollution’
is now a veritable cliche. Yet it is respected over a wide range of public
life. Its application would, of course, be simple if only the world consisted
of discrete and uncomplicated systems.

Take, for example, potable water. At the European Community’s Edinburgh
Summit in December 1992 it was decided that drinking water should be subjected
to a new directive from the European Community. Now, we all know the true
source of the various nitrates and pesticides which turn up in our tap water,
don’t we? Over the past 40 years, so the belief goes, our system of intensive
farming has created the effluents which have percolated through the soils
and contaminate the aquifers from which so much of our water springs. So,
why don’t we subject farmers to the polluter-pays principle?

Lord Howe, the junior agricultural minister, tells me it just isn’t
government policy. You couldn’t pinpoint the exact origins of 40 years’
accumulation of ‘diffuse-source agricultural pollution’, such as nitrates,
in an aquifer, he says. Agriculture is not the only source of such chemicals.
And their concentration in water sources is also a function of the amount
of water which is taken for use in public supply. In these circumstances,
says Howe, it would be invidious for today’s farming industry to bear the
costs of water treatment, as New Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ suggested recently (Comment,
24 July).

However, with so-called ‘point source pollution’, such as discharge
pipes, matters are much clearer. In magistrates courts, says Howe, the maximum
penalty for water pollution offences has now been raised from £2000
to £20 000, and usually the cost of cleaning up the pollution is
also recovered.

I have to agree that action against farmers would be invidious. Certainly,
it would create all hell for the government’s standing in its rural constituencies.

* * *

Back in the summer, just before the ministerial reshuffle, Mick Hamer
commented that a rethink in the design of towns and cities could help to
restrain the spiralling growth of traffic and cut emissions of carbon dioxide
(‘City planners against global warming’, 24 July). He added that the environment
minister responsible for launching the new policy of encouraging high-density
development near public transport routes was then George Young, known in
the gossip columns as the ‘bicycling baronet’. Young had a long record of
supporting environmental causes, said Hamer, and he wondered if a reshuffle
would blunt the government’s resolve for planning a sustainable transport
system.

The ministerial portfolio for planning moved to other hands, so I sought
a comment from the Department of Transport on the question. Robert Key,
the minister for roads and transport, provided a slightly pained reply,
assuring me that there was no change in the government’s policy.

‘We are continuing to work closely with the Department of the Environment,
particularly in the preparation of its Planning Policy Guidance Note 13
on Transport, which is at present open for consultation.’

Well, I’d like to think that because Key represents one of the most
beautiful of all places in Europe, the cathedral city of Salisbury, knows
something of the correlation between land-use planning and transport. I
trust that in action he will be no less zealous than George Young.

* * *

Two owners of great estates in my constituency had grandfathers who
were Viceroy of India and Prime Minister, respectively – Lord Linlithgow,
who has the magnificent Adam house at Hopetoun, and Lord Rosebery, who has
the wonderful furniture and books of Dalmeny. The present Lord Rosebery
asked my view on the proposed repeal of the Weeds Act, which is a matter
of serious discussion in government. The Weeds Act of 1959 allows ministers
of agriculture to serve notice on the occupier of a piece of land to control
weeds on it. A repeal would be in line with the government’s drive towards
deregulation.

Actually, the act applies only to five plant species, two thistles,
two docks and the common ragwort. The act has been invoked only infrequently,
and MAFF has never instituted a prosecution under it. As far as I’m concerned,
you can forget the thistles and the docks – the real problem is ragwort.
This nasty weed contains a group of alkaloids which are either directly
or indirectly toxic to the liver.

Keep the Weeds Act, I say. It could be vital to countering dangerous
aliens.