HC Deb 07 May 1923 vol 163 cc2093-107

1. No person shall cause or knowingly permit to flow, or put or knowingly permit to be put, into any waters containing fish, or into any tributaries thereof, any liquid or solid matter to such an extent as to cause the waters to be poisonous or injurious to fish or the spawning grounds, spawn or food for fish, and if any person contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act:

Provided that— (a) A person shall not be so liable to any penalty for any act done in the exercise of any right to which he is by law entitled or in continuation of a method in use in connection with the same premises prior to the passing of this Act, if he proves to the satisfaction of the court before which he is charged that he has used the best practicable means, within a reasonable cost, to prevent such matter from doing injury to fish or to the spawning grounds, spawn or food of fish;

3. Proceedings under this section shall not be instituted except by the fishery board or by a person who has first obtained a certificate from the Minister that he has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), after the word "penalty" ["liable to any penalty"], to insert the words "under this Act."

I know it is not popular to move Amendments at this time of night, but I am not concerned with popularity. What I am concerned with is the prevention of the pollution of rivers and streams, and the object of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that the new powers proposed by Clause 8 will not prejudice the rights of private individuals, in case they suffer damage through the pollution of rivers. On the Second Reading the Minister said the Bill was not intended to prejudice civil actions for damages, and the Amendment, if accepted, will make that quite clear.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

The Amendment, if the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to say so, is really unnecessary. The first part of the Clause says that a person who does certain things shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and in the next line it says that the person shall not be "so" liable to any penalty, &c. Those words are, in my submission, incapable of any other meaning except that a person shall not be liable to the penalty mentioned in the preceding two lines in the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

That sounds very satisfactory, but there may be actions at law, and the learned counsel engaged may differ from the learned Solicitor-General on this point. Would it very much injure the Bill if these simple words were added? I do not think it would injure the grammar, and it would certainly make it clearer.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, a), to leave out the words or in continuation of a method in use in connection with the same premises prior to the passing of this Act. This is an Amendment of considerable importance, not only to all of us who are anglers, but to all those in this House who represent anglers, because much very serious damage to angling in this country will be committed if these words remain in the Bill. This is not an agreed Measure or an agreed Clause, as has been suggested by the Ministry of Agriculture in the various circulars which it has issued to the public. I have had it said to me in the Lobby that I ought not to oppose this Bill, seeing that it is an agreed Bill, but it is nothing of the sort. The angling associations of this country have not agreed to this Bill as it stands at the present moment. The Ministry of Agriculture, in October, wrote to the county councils of England and Wales, stating that Clause 8, the pollution Clause, the vital Clause, of the Bill as at present drafted, has the support of the National Association of Fishery Boards, and in this connection he drew the attention of the county councils to the Memorandum on the Bill recently issued by the National Association of Fishery Boards. But what are the facts? The last meeting of the National Association of Fishery Boards was held in February, 1922, over a year ago, and the Erskine Amendment, which is the Amendment I am seeking to remove from the Bill, was not inserted in the pollution Clause until the month of July, and since the insertion of that Amendment there has been no meeting, so I am informed on the beet authority, of the National Association of Fishery Boards. It is, therefore—and I use the term with no offence—not correct to say that this Clause has the approval either of the National Association of Fishery Boards or of anglers generally.

I wish to impress on hon. Members how vital is this matter in so far as the future of angling, the noblest of recreations, is concerned. I will state exactly what the position is. Since the Rivers Pollution Act, 1876, became law on 15th August of that year, it has been quite impossible by prescription, that is to say, by continuing a course of conduct extending over a long period, to acquire a right of pollution, but in 1876 the Act gave to manufacturers and to owners of mines and other individuals of that description, who were polluting at the time of the passing of the Act, the right to continue to pollute so long as they used the best practical and available means of rendering their effluent harmless. It was also held in the courts that the cost of installing these means should not be too prohibitive, having regard to the result obtained. That was the effect of the Act of 1876, but by that Act no manufacturer who commenced to pollute after the Act had passed was allowed to pollute, and, if he were proceeded against in the courts he could not plead that he had used the best practical and available means to render harmless the polluting matter [Laughter.] I am not sure what it is that occasions the mirth of the hon. Member. It may be that he is thinking about the new land campaign to be intro- duced by his leader. That is the law as it stands at the present moment.

Now comes this Bill, introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, with the Clause which I am seeking to amend. The Clause as it stands will give to persons who have no right under any circumstances to pollute, but who have been polluting since that date—it will give them the right to plead that they have used the best practical means under the existing law which they could. I hope I have made this clear to the House and that the House will support this Amendment. I hope it is now clear to hon. Members where exactly lies the difference between the present law and the law as it will be if this Clause be carried with the objectionable words which I am seeking to delete. I do hope hon. Members will give me their support on this Amendment which seeks to prevent the destruction of most angling throughout the country and that, in giving me their support, they will make it quite clear that they are determined not to legalise the existing pollution nor to extend pollution in the direction of destroying salmon trout, coarse fish and every other class of fish.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope)

I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that his present Amendment, as drafted, will shut out his next Amendment on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for pointing that out, but the next Amendment was an alternative amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE

I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his exposition of the Amendment on the Paper. I would like to say, however, first, that it is not quite a fact that angling associations are opposed to the Bill as it stands. In fact, the representations received from the angling associations and Fishery Boards in favour of the Bill as it stands to-day are beyond number. The position is that the Bill as it stands is a compromise to some extent. It creates a new class of offences, dealing with such pollution as will interfere, not only with salmon but with the spawn of fish. For the purpose of the new group of offences created by this Clause, the proviso is made that it shall be a possible defence to show that when a person is polluting a stream he is exercising a prescriptive right. He is also to show that he has taken the best possible steps to prevent the pollution. That is a defence which is only available for the purpose of the new offence created by this Section, and will not provide a defence for any offence which is an offence apart from this Bill; therefore, anything which is made illegal by the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, will still be an offence. It will not be possible for anyone to acquire a prescriptive right to do that which is illegal under the Pollution Act of 1876, because there cannot be a prescriptive right to do that which is illegal. When this Bill was before the House of Lords, it is quite true there seemed to be an attempt to prevent the Bill from being as effective as it might have been. At the same time it is a compromise. The Bill is a distinct step forward. These words do not touch any offence which already exists under the Pollution Act of 1876. The interests of Fishery Boards and associations of anglers have been met to some extent; the opposition of other persons has been removed, and I am sure the House will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member as I venture to assure the House it is unnecessary. I, therefore, hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It is common ground that the Bill does not legalise the fouling of rivers. The words we propose to leave out do admit of the defence being put forward, which was only granted under the Act referred to, to those who acquired it from the date of the passing of that Act, whether in the exercise of their business or other certain privileges. By the time this Bill receives Royal assent these words will encourage putting forward the view that the best practical means were being used to prevent fouling. That will be a great weapon in the hands of wealthy corporations against comparatively poor fisheries associations and small local authorities who are fighting over this great question of pollution. That is the whole point. Furthermore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that there is not much opinion in favour of this Amendment, and very many fishery boards and angling associations are in favour of the Bill. But many hon. Members will have received from their local angling associations and other bodies representing the fishermen, requests to support this Amendment. I have received many from Yorkshire, from associations and a body of anglers representing a thousand members, mostly working men, who write asking me to support the Amendment, and to oppose the Bill in its entirety if Lord Erskine's Amendment in Clause 8 is not withdrawn—which we are now attempting to do. These associations put the matter from the anglers' point of view, but there is also the public health point of view.

This, after all, is a very serious matter. Industrialism in this country has worked many ills on the community, but one of the worst things that has happened has been the fouling of our beautiful English livers and streams. Anything that can be done to strengthen the hands of those bodies who are fighting for pure streams and pure rivers and for the health and pleasure they give—anything that can be done to strengthen those comparatively poor associations who are fighting these battles should be done.

This Amendment will help them. We feel bound to divide on this, and we hope we shall have the support, apart from any question of party, of all those who want to protect poor anglers, especially in the neighbourhood of our great industrial centres and those who want to help the health of the community which after all does depend very largely on clear and pure waters flowing through the countryside—those who want to preserve something of the beauties of our natural landscape we appeal to those who want to support sportsmen, who love beauty and Nature. We used to have a lovely country. It is only lovely now in parts owing to the industralisation of our land. It is on practical sentimental grounds, for reasons of health, and for reasons connected with the support of an inexpensive, domestic and popular sport of vast numbers of deserving citizens. On all these grounds, I trust the House will not be led away by the exposition of legal arguments by the Solicitor-General. He, of course, speaks from the legal point of view. We are not thinking of the briefs of lawyers—I do not say he is—but we are trying to make legislation simpler and easier and more accessible to those great fishing communities and associations of anglers for whom we speak. For all these reasons, I hope we shall get more support than we did on the last occasion.

Mr. McENTEE

I wish to put a point to the Solicitor-General. I happen to represent one of those towns bordering on the River Lea. We are rated at the present time at something over 25s. in the £, and we shall be taxed with an expenditure of £200,000. This is very serious from the point of view that a penny rate brings in £2,000, and an expenditure of £200,000 is an exceedingly important thing. I ask the Solicitor-General how this is going to affect us. The effluent from the sewage farm is always under the observation of the Lea Conservancy Board. I shall be compelled to vote against the Bill from that point of view, although I agree that the public health point of view is the most important, and I do not like to be compelled to vote against a Bill that may be rightly said to be a Bill that will improve the public health.

Sir R. SANDERS

If the hon. Member will look at Clause 43, he will see that this Bill does not provide for the River Lea.

Mr. PRINGLE

rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member, by seconding the Amendment, has exhausted his right to speak.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member has spoken.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. May I ask is it not recognised that an hon. Member may second by raising his hat, and yet preserve his right, to speak?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The act of seconding constitutes the exercise of the right to speak.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 40.

Division No. 140.] AYES. [12.32 a.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Ednam, Viscount Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Jarrett, G. W. S.
Apsley, Lord Ellis, R. G. Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. England, Lieut. -Colonel A. Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) King, Captain Henry Douglas
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. Lamb, J. Q.
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Barnett, Major Richard W. Ford, Patrick Johnston Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Barnston, Major Harry Forestier-Walker, L. Lorimer, H. D.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Lumley, L. R.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Berry, Sir George Furness, G. J. Manville, Edward
Betterton, Henry B. Galbraith, J. F. W. Margesson, H. D. R.
Blades, Sir George Rowland Garland, C. S. Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Blundell, F. N. George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Goff, Sir R. Park Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. Gould, James C. Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Brass, Captain W. Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Nall, Major Joseph
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Brittain, Sir Harry Guthrie, Thomas Maule Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham) Gwynne, Rupert S. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Bruford, R. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Paget, T. G.
Buckingham, Sir H. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Halstead, Major D. Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Button, H. S. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Cadogan, Major Edward Harrison, F. C. Penny, Frederick George
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Harvey, Major S. E. Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hawke, John Anthony Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Peto, Basil E.
Churchman, Sir Arthur Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Pielou, D. P.
Clayton, G. C. Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Privett, F. J.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Hiley, Sir Ernest Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Hinds, John Remer, J. R.
Cope, Major William Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Rentoul, G. S.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Hopkins, John W. W. Reynolds, W. G. W.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) Houfton, John Plowright Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Dawson, Sir Philip Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Edge, Captain Sir William Hudson, Capt. A. Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. Steel, Major S. Strang Wells, S. R.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H. Whitla, Sir William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A. Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) Winterton, Earl
Sanderson, Sir Frank B. Thorpe, Captain John Henry Wise, Frederick
Shepperson, E. W. Titchfield, Marquess of Wolmer, Viscount
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A. Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Singleton, J. E. Tubbs, S. W. Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Skelton, A. N. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) Wallace, Captain E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Sparkes, H. W. Waring, Major Walter Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington) Colonel Gibbs.
Stanley, Lord
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Potts, John S.
Bonwick, A. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Pringle, W. M. R.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Saklatvala, S.
Chapple, W. A. Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Charleton, H. C. Lawson, John James Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Leach, W. Warne, G. H.
Darbishire, C. W. Linfield, F. C. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lunn, William Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Ede, James Chuter M'Entee, V. L. White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Foot, Isaac Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gosling, Harry Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Millar, J. D. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray and
Harbord, Arthur Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.
Hayday, Arthur Phillipps, Vivian
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).

It is impossible to understand the motives of the Minister of Agriculture in putting this Sub-section into the Bill. This Sub-section proposes that Proceedings under this Section shall not be instituted except by the fishing board or by a person who has first obtained a certificate from the Minister that he has a material interest in the waters alleged to be affected. What was wrong with the old procedure? Why should not the private person be able to take proceedings as was the case under the law as it stands? This Sub-section, if it stands in the Bill, will impose hardship upon the riparian owner and upon anglers and make it more difficult to institute proceedings, and secondly to prove cases of pollution. It is a Subsection which, if passed, will be entirely disadvantageous to the public. I cannot conceive any advantage whatsoever it is going to bring to any person who is interested in the subject of fisheries. Its effect will be to limit the power of prosecution. In many districts, as we know, and certainly as the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) who is a prince of anglers knows, there are no fishery boards, but only local authorities, and in that case it would be perfectly impossible for the powers under this Clause to be put into operation. I suggest to the Minister and to the House—and I hope the House will give me more support for this Amendment than it did for the last—that anglers ought to have power to prosecute without having to satisfy an autocratic Minister of Agriculture that they possess a national interest in the polluted waters. In the hope that the House will give me this support I beg to move.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to second the Amendment. I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend was not deterred from moving this Amendment. The last Amendment was avowedly in the interest of anglers and the public health, but this Amendment is in the interest of the constitutional rights of the individual. This Sub-section proposes to take away the rights of the citizen to have resource to His Majesty's courts of law until he has the gracious permission of some bureaucrat sitting in London. I am not, of course, referring to the right hon. Gentleman, because all the deputations etc. will be received, not by him, but by one of the permanent officials. I rather think that this is an entirely new departure in law. I have only been a short time in this House and there are many more experienced legislators, but I would very much like to know since when it has been proposed to limit the rights of the subject to go to law when he is aggrieved. These are the days when we are being taught that the only resource that an aggrieved person should have is in the legislature or in the law, and here you are limiting these rights by Act of Parliament. I think it is very extraordinary.

This is a constitutional point and I think that must be obvious to everyone. I was not on the Committee of this Bill, but I do hope the matter was fought out there. If it was not, I think the Committee did not quite do their duty, and it is our place on Report to put it right if it was neglected. There is another practical objection. When a river is affected by the residue of mills, etc., it is necessary to take instant action, otherwise a great deal of harm is done to the fisheries. This proposal will put an extra cause of delay in the way of the aggrieved parties who have to go to the trouble of appealing to the Minister of Agriculture before they can even lodge an action. If they are not wealthy, they cannot go to the extent of instructing lawyers. We have all had experience of how Government Departments can delay and procrastinate in taking decisions of any sort, and there is no knowing at all how long it will take to get the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries before the action can be proceeded with. In the meantime, the damage may be done, the stream may be fouled, the fish may be lying dead, and the fishing hopes of the community of anglers may be killed for that year; fishing clubs and fishing bodies may have to be annulled, children may be poisoned and the whole community's health may be affected by noxious matter being allowed to flow in a river which was formerly clean, before we can take constitutional action. It is surely a very ancient privilege of His Majesty's lieges, but until we have the permission of the right hon. Gentleman or of one of his permanent officials nothing can be done. There have been cases of violent action by people, and this may make working people take direct action. It is all very well—I am not making any personal attack—for wealthy anglers to be indifferent to this matter. We all know the valuable fishery rights in the north of Scotland and in the west of England are not likely to be affected by industrial pollution of the water. What we have to think about are the rights of the poorer men in the industrial centres.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

On a point of Order. Is it right for hon. Members to stand laughing outside the Bar?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I did not observe it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I addressed my brief remarks to the Speaker, and did not hear them, but I am obliged to the hon. Member for having brought the fact he mentioned to the notice of the House. We have to think of the people crowded together in our growing industrial centres whose pleasures are more circumscribed every day. One of their few recreations left is the harmless and gentle art of angling. They are to be precluded unless there is a Fishery Board from proceeding to law. That means that any fishing club or any riparian owner who thinks himself injured in his rights cannot go to law and get a nuisance stopped until he has permission from Whitehall. That is preposterous.

Sir R. SANDERS

The condition in this Clause to which the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment alluded as something very extraordinary and revolutionary, is not nearly so stringent as that laid down in the Rivers Pollution Act, 1876. There it was laid down that prosecutions had only been taken by the Sanitary Authority, and even the Sanitary Authority was not allowed to take such proceedings without the consent of the Local Government Board. Here we are giving power, not only to the Fishery Board to take these sort of proceedings—and, after all, the Fishery Board is the proper body for the purpose because everyone interested in the fisheries has either a direct or indirect representation on the Fishery Board—but we are going further and saying that if anyone who has a material interest in the fishing wishes to proceed against anyone who is polluting the river, he has a right to do so if he gets the consent of the Minister. I need not say that such leave is not likely to be frivolously withheld. But this Clause is not meant to subject anyone who has rights to use the river for effluent to irresponsible proceedings. After all, they have rights as well as anyone else. Agreement was come to on this Clause, and however keen we may be on fishing, we do not wish to be unreasonable, and we do not wish to subject other people to unreasonable vexation or annoyance. The Clause gives more to the angler than was given under the Rivers Pollution Act and I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. PRINGLE

There are several questions with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt. What is the position where there happens to be no Fishery Board? Where there was no Fishery Board the circumstances were much better under the Act he quoted, because there was a Sanitary Authority and consequently to the extent that you limit prosecutions to places where there are Fishery Boards, or to private persons who receive the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, you are placing a limitation on the existing powers to obtain a conviction.

Sir R. SANDERS

That is not so. The powers of the Rivers Pollution Act still remain.

Mr. PRINGLE

I understood that this was a consolidating Bill.

Sir R. SANDERS

It does not consolidate the Rivers Pollution Acts but the Fisheries Acts.

Mr. PRINGLE

The right hon. Gentleman has been endeavouring to induce the House to believe that the Sub-section is important because it supersedes the Rivers Pollution Act, which merely gives a right to a sanitary authority, while this gives the right to the Fishery Board and a private individual with the consent of the Minister. That was the argument with which he met the case made.

Sir R. SANDERS

This is additional to and not in substitution.

Mr. PRINGLE

Then what is the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that he improves the matter? What legislation is this consolidating? It is consolidating the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Acts. Under these Acts there was no limitation at all. We are considering

the effect of this consolidating and amending Bill on the law as it stands and not on collateral Acts. To quote the Rivers Pollution Act in relation to this is totally irrelevant. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to prove that no party's, rights are being affected, he ought to tell the House what is the state of the law apart from this consolidating Bill. I understand that apart from this consolidating Bill there are wider powers of prosecution than exist under this Clause, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can show that nobody's rights of prosecution are diminshed by this consolidating Bill I contend that he has made no answer to the case of my hon. Friend. As I understand it, under the Act of 1861, the police could prosecute; a member of the public could prosecute. I would ask the Solicitor-General if I am not stating the law correctly, that under the Acts which this Bill professes to consolidate and amend there was available to the police and to an ordinary member of the public the right to bring a case of this kind into Court, in addition to the sanitary authority? The case, therefore, is this: that by restricting the power of prosecution to fishery boards and to persons who have a material interest, with the assent of the Minister of Agriculture, a restriction is being imposed on the rights of the public by this Bill. It is the same thing as happened in the previous Sub-section. What the Government is professing to do with one hand it is taking away with another. It professes to make the law more stringent, but it is limiting the rights of ordinary individuals to enforce it. The Minister says the Clause is a compromise. It is a compromise in this sense: it is adding nothing to the effectiveness of the law as it at present stands, rather it is diminishing the power of individuals to act and it is likely to give greater immunity.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'a' ["obtained a certificate"], stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 40.

Division No. 141.] AYES. [1.1 a.m.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Barnston, Major Harry Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) Brass, Captain W.
Apsley, Lord Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. Brassey, Sir Leonard
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W. Berry, Sir George Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Betterton, Henry B. Brittain, Sir Harry
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Blades, Sir George Rowland Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Blundell, F. N. Bruford, R.
Barnett, Major Richard W. Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Buckingham, Sir H.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. Hawke, John Anthony Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Button, H. S. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Richardson, Lt.-Col- Sir P. (Chertsey)
Cadogan, Major Edward Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Herbert, S. (Scarborough) Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Hiley, Sir Ernest Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) Hinds, John Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Churchman, Sir Arthur Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Clayton, G. C. Hopkins, John W. W. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Houfton, John Plowright Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.) Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Cope, Major William Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South) Hudson, Capt. A. Shepperson, E. W.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend) Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove) Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Singleton, J. E.
Dawson, Sir Philip Jarrett, G. W. S. Skelton, A. N.
Edge, Captain Sir William Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croyden, South)
Edmondson, Major A. J. Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul Sparkes, H. W.
Ednam, Viscount King, Captain Henry Douglas Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Stanley, Lord
Ellis, R. G. Lamb, J. Q. Steel, Major S. Strang
England, Lieut.-Colonel A. Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Lorimer, H. D. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan) Lumley, L. R. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Manville, Edward Thomson, T, (Middlesbrough, West)
Ford, Patrick Johnston Margesson, H. D. R. Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Forestier-Walker, L. Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K. Titchfield, Marquess of
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Molloy, Major L. G. S. Tubbs, S. W.
Furness, G. J. Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Galbraith, J. F. W. Nall, Major Joseph Wallace, Captain E.
Garland, C. S. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Waring, Major Walter
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster) Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)
Goff, Sir R. Park Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Wells, S. R.
Gould, James C. Paget, T. G. Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Gray, Harold (Cambridge) Parker, Owen (Kettering) Whitla, Sir William
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) Pennefather, De Fonblanque Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. Penny, Frederick George Winterton, Earl
Guthrie, Thomas Maule Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Wise, Frederick
Gwynne, Rupert S. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Wolmer, Viscount
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Peto, Basil E. Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Pielou, D. P. Yerburgh, R. D. T.
Halstead, Major D. Privett, F. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harrison, F. C. Remer, J. R. Colonel Leslie Wilson and Lieut.-
Harvey, Major S. E. Reynolds, W. G. W. Colonel Gibbs.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. William Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill) Phillipps, Vivian
Bonwick, A. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Potts, John S.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Pringle, W. M. R.
Chapple, W. A. Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Saklatvala, S.
Charleton, H. C. Lawson, John James Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) Leach, W. Warne, G. H.
Darbishire, C. W. Linfield, F. C. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Lunn, William Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D, (Rhondda)
Ede, James Chuter M'Entee, V. L. White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Foot, Isaac Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gosling, Harry Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Gray, Frank (Oxford) Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Millar, J. D. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray and
Harbord, Arthur Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western) Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.
Hayday, Arthur Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

Bill read the Third time, and passed.