Second Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.) (Hansard, 4 June 1951)

§ Mr. Lindgren
I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, to leave out "three and," and to insert "to."
This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the re-numbering of the Clauses in Committee.

§ Mr. Lindgren
I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out lines 17 to 20.
This Amendment gives the power of entry to boats for inspection. The omission of the words referred to in the Amendment gives that power of entry, the purpose of which is to prevent pollution or anticipated pollution that is likely to arise from ships and barges which enter the waters over which the boards have control.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I understand that it is the Minister's contention that if these words were left in, they would weaken the powers to obtain samples and so on, and that their omission is to ensure that the Act will really be observed.

§ Mr. Lindgren
That is particularly so in so far as harbour and harbour authorities are concerned. It has special reference when the Act is extended, as I hope that it will be, to tidal waters. So far as the Bill is concerned now, I am advised that the power is there with regard to non-tidal waters, but that for harbour and tidal waters this power will be required.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I am grateful to the Minister for extending his explanation. In so far as the Amendment extends these powers and brings nearer the effective control of harbour and tidal waters, we all welcome it. I am not quite sure why the provision was originally inserted, 734 since it is the Minister's intention that it should now be left out; but, for my part, I am not objecting to it.

§ Mr. Lindgren
I beg to move, in page 14, line 25, to leave out "omission of," and to insert "substitution of the words 'after consultation with the river board,' for."
The purpose of paragraph 4 (1) of the Second Schedule is to enable the Ministers, when asked by a river Board to confirm bylaws, to amend those bylaws if they think fit without the consent of the board. The Amendment does not detract from the Ministers' powers to amend bylaws but provides that they shall consult with the river boards if they propose to amend a bylaw which has been submitted to them. It makes clear what was always the intention, that although Ministers are not required to agree with the river boards, they are required to consult with them and to inform them of their intentions to amend bylaws.

§ Mr. Lindgren
I beg to move, in page 14, line 30, to leave out "Minister," and to insert "Ministers."
There are consequential Amendments in page 14, lines 32 and 33. These Amendments give effect to a promise made by my right hon. Friend in Committee that bylaws made by the river boards under the Bill shall be confirmed jointly by the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Colonel Clarke
I am delighted to see the Amendment. I was one of those who on Second Reading raised this specific point. Remembering that the River Boards Bill was sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture, we were naturally disappointed when this Bill came in without his assistance. After all, this Bill has been shown in its progress through the House to be largely concerned with fish, that being one of the reasons for cleaning up the rivers—and the Minister of Agriculture is also Minister of Fisheries.
6.0 p.m.
As I understand it, this Amendment ensures that the bylaws made require confirmation from both the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries 735 and it also amends the River Boards Act, 1948, to a certain extent. Apart from the question of fisheries, the Minister of Agriculture is concerned in other directions as well. Today many farmers have to fence their cattle from the streams that run through their farms, and have to use piped water, laid at considerable expense, because pollution prevents them from using the unlimited gallons passing through their farms. That is a very wasteful and distressing thing in the countryside, and for that reason the Minister of Agriculture should be brought into the matter. I am sure that the Minister of Local Government and Planning will find his assistance very valuable. I do not think there is any more to be said about it. I am glad there is this addition to the Bill, and it is one of considerable moment and importance.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
As a result of some representations that were made in Committee, the Minister has made this concession. He pleaded then, as is always proper for a Minister to plead, the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility—that Ministers' responsibility is a collective one and they do not act independently of each other. However, that is not always conclusive, because there are Departments. I happen to have occupied both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health, and I found that if I had an Act to plead in favour of consultation, I was in a stronger position that if I had no such Act. I remember a couplet by Sagittarius, who was not of my way of thinking, but who composed this very useful couplet about the activities of the Minister without Portfolio. He sends his memoranda far On Health and Labour, Peace and War, To which Departments' answer is It is no business of his. That sometimes is an answer to another's Minister's objections.

§ Mr. Lindgren
I beg to move, in page 15, line 27, to leave out "four weeks," and to insert "two months."
This Amendment follows the acceptance during Committee of an Amendment which altered the period in which notice of discharge must be given to a river board, and the Amendment brings into line the paragraph covering the transitional period.