POLLUTION OF RIVERS.

HL Deb 18 July 1927 vol 68 cc601-24

LORD MILDMAY OF FLETE rose to call attention to the position in relation to the pollution of rivers; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on February 15 last there was received by the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, on behalf of the Prime Minister, a very representative deputation, which approached him with a view to impressing upon the Government the necessity of dealing with the growing menace of river pollution. Their case, which was set forth in their memorandum, in effect urged what had been proposed over and over again by many Royal Commissions and Committees for fifty years past. They asked that a central authority should be established to control inland waters, and that local river boards should be created in support of that central authority. They also urged the necessity for scientific research, designed to solve the innumerable problems attendant on the abatement of pollution. The deputation was organised by a joint committee of the British Waterworks Association and the Salmon and Trout Association, but the two associations were supported by many other bodies, including the National Association of Fishery Boards, the Association of Medical Officers of Health, the Federation of British Industries, and the Federation of British Anglers, which represents a very large body of working-class fishermen who seek recreation in inland waters. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Pure Rivers Society also sent representatives.

The deputation was the culmination of a movement which was started in June, 1921, by a conference which was held at Fishmongers' Hall on the initiative of the Salmon and Trout Association. As a consequence of that conference a deputation was received by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in October of the same year, the deputation being accompanied by representatives of the Federation of British Industries. As an outcome of that deputation there was established what has since become known as the Standing Committee on River Pollution of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of that Departmental Committee I have been a member ever since its establishment, very nearly six years ago. Membership of that Committee, as set up by the Government, includes representatives of fishery boards of England and Wales, owners and occupiers of salmon and trout waters, representatives of working men anglers' associations, representatives of the Federation of British Industries and of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. If evidence were required of the self-sacrificing zeal of the members of that Committee it would suffice to point out that the Committee is purely voluntary, that it has held continuous meetings for nearly six years past, and that all the expenses of attending those committee meetings in London have been discharged by the members themselves, without any help from the Government, although some of them, especially the members of anglers' associations coming from a distance, can ill afford to do so.

The Committee held their first meeting in December, 1921, under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, who spoke to us of the services we could render (I quote his words):— by collecting evidence of the damage due to pollution, and by preparing for further and more advanced legislation by organised intelligence work.

He went on:— I think the Committee will be a valuable instrument in spreading information throughout the country and in stirring up popular feeling in favour of clean rivers.

The Committee have endeavoured so to act. At the same time they have tried by such means as are at their disposal to abate pollution by enlisting the co-operation of the polluters.

The Federation of British Industries being represented upon our Committee, we have always acted upon the assumption that those who control great industries will welcome such assistance as we can give them to purify their effluents. I am glad to say that our subsequent experience has fully justified that assumption, and that our relations with all the great industrial concerns with which we have been brought into contact have been most amicable. We have tried to act as advisers and friends, rather than as policemen. We have throughout adopted what I think is the reasonable view, that an improvement in the conditions of our rivers must be brought about without injury to the important industrial interests involved. We have thought that we might achieve this by making known in each locality the actual state of affairs, and to this end, with the assistance of the technical advisers of the Ministry and of local sub-committees, with the assistance also of local sanitary authorities, we have carried out a survey of a number of rivers, and have amassed much information about their condition and about the sources of pollution.

But—and here is the "snag"—neither our Committee nor the Ministry have any executive power to give effect to the conclusions resulting from the information which we have already acquired. Fishery boards have powers under the Act of 1923 to prosecute those guilty of harmful pollution, but the case against individual polluters is often very hard to prove, and action cannot be taken until the mischief has been done. Fishery boards as a rule can ill afford the expenses of prosecution. Moreover, our Committee think that prosecution is the wrong method. We have looked to helpful and friendly co-operation with industry as the best means of bringing about a better state of affairs. Further, many polluters have not been in a position to abate pollution, through ignorance of the means of effective treatment. So I press the point—advise and help before you prosecute.

But the point in this connection which I specially wish to make is that in any case the whole burden of protecting our rivers from impurities should not be thrown upon the shoulders of those concerned with fisheries. It is not only the well-being of our fisheries which is at issue; the question is a far greater one than that, and has a more far-reaching importance. It is no exaggeration to say that every member of the community, whether he has fishery interests or not, should be deeply concerned about the purity of our rivers, which is of supreme importance in respect of domestic water supplies, in respect of water power, in respect of agriculture, and in respect of local amenities. Water authorities are beginning to realise that the available underground supplies of water are nearing exhaustion, and that they will be obliged in the not distant future to take water supplies from the rivers themselves. Pure water in these rivers, therefore, is absolutely necessary. Perhaps it may be said that those who employ water power, at any rate, need not fear pollution, but even to some of them it is a matter of considerable importance, as, for instance, when an electric power company finds its turbines and tubes choked with the slime of pollution.

Of course, the agricultural interest is vitally affected. Farmers require clean water as drinking supplies for their cattle, and for domestic and dairy purposes. Many cases can be adduced where, as a result of pollution, streams flowing through farms are actually poisonous to cattle, or are so offensive that the cattle will not drink the water. Not by any means the least important consideration is that of local amenities. Both the physical and mental health of the communities established in proximity to our great towns would be vastly improved if the rivers which we have allowed to be converted into sewers were available, not only for angling but for other means of enjoyment, such as bathing and boating. In such a case there would be added to the surroundings such beauty as is inseparable from a pure and healthy stream, but which is incompatible with a dirty drain. But it is not only the great rivers of our country that I have in mind. There is many a small river, even in lovely Devonshire, which in time of summer drought stinks at various points. Many such rivers—I know that well myself—are treated as a dumping ground for all the filth of the district, and it seems to be forgotten that these streams are a national asset and a national possession. It is a national affair, because they belong to the people.

This memorandum (which I have here) that was presented to the Earl of Balfour by the deputation, shows how the problems of pollution have constantly engaged the attention of Royal Commissions, of Select and Departmental Committees, of scientific bodies and of other institutions for more than half a century, and how all have agreed that some form of central authority is absolutely necessary in view of the lack of co-ordination which exists amongst those bodies that have control of rivers—lack of co-ordination which has resulted in confusion and indifference. Cognisant of the need for economy, we of the Committee have refrained from urging the adoption of any procedure which may entail heavy expenditure, and we have expressly declared that we do not contemplate the establishment of a new Government Department. But there has been insistence upon two points: first, that some kind of central authority is essential, and that in order to ensure smooth working in such central authority, it must have a national rather than a Departmental basis. I am not sure "national" is exactly the right word. What I mean is that, as more than one Ministry will be affected, it should be a non-Departmental Committee under an independent Chairman, since it will have to co-ordinate the views of several Ministries and Departments. As a necessary complement of such a central body a general institution of river or watershed boards, of which there are a few already, was recommended. Under this system a single authority would have care of each river from the source to the mouth. Finally the co-ordination and extension of research work for the remedial treatment of effluents was suggested.

In answering the deputation last February, the Lord President of the Council very rightly dwelt upon the necessity for research work and he warned us—I quote his own words—that "speedy results could not be expected from scientific research." To some of that deputation he gave the impression that in his opinion much more research work was necessary before any remedial measures could be framed—an impression which was deepened by the silence of the Government, during the past five months and the absence of any constructive suggestions from them. Let me hasten to say that I did not myself derive the same impression from his words and I hope he will be able to dispel that misapprehension to-day. It suffices me to say that we of the Permanent Departmental Pollutions Committee feel strongly that our research work, so admirably carried on for a long time past by scientific experts, has reached such a stage that the time has come for an effort to apply the results locally and to assist with co-operative advice great and small manufacturing concerns to purify their effluents. Continuous research work will always be necessary. New problems are always arising, for instance, in connection with the new sugar beet industry and with coke oven effluents.

But our Pollutions Committee and the Department have urged that we want something more than research. Members of our Committee hold most strongly that we cannot do much more good in present circumstances, and we feel that continued attendance at the meetings of the Committee will be unjustifiable unless the Government take some action in the direction suggested. The noble Earl (the Earl of Balfour) must not look upon this as a threat. It is not a threat; it is merely the honest expression of an opinion as to what our sense of duty requires of us. Let it not be forgotten that the evil is growing. It is common knowledge that comparatively small quantities of tar acids, tar bases, in a stream are fatal to fish life and entirely destroy fish foods. Local authorities have been appealed to to use some less harmful material than tar in proximity to our streams. Some local authorities have responded; others have failed to respond, and it should be possible to insist on their doing so. I should weary your Lordships if I enlarged upon the importance of the salmon and inland fisheries of Great Britain and I am not going to do so. I will only remark that it is often forgotten that the salmon rivers of Great Britain are potentially the most valuable in Europe. That fact is often lost sight of because so many of them are ruined, or practically ruined. To put it shortly, much pollution can be stopped which is the result merely of thoughtless stupidity and ignorance. We cannot wait until perfect means of dealing with all effluents have been discovered when, by the application of means less perfect, pollution can be abated and its growth prevented. What astonishingly good work has been done in this sense by the Teme Basin Committee through the public spirit shown by local authorities in the district of Birmingham. No less effectively has the purity of rivers been ensured by the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board at no excessive cost even in an industrial district.

I would, in conclusion, say that the success achieved in these two cases has led us to believe that through a central authority, backed by adequate local administration, much can be done with the knowledge already gained by research to mitigate pollution and to arrest its development. I owe an apology to your Lordships for having detained you at such length. I must admit that I am an enthusiast where the preservation of the natural beauties of our countryside are concerned. These are being attacked from all quarters. We all know of the benefit which is derived from the great arterial roads radiating from London. But now we are threatened with a criss-cross of great and unlovely motor roads, or rather motor racing tracks, which are to leave no remote or intimately beautiful corner of rural England untouched. The peaceful beauties of rural England, incomparable throughout the world, are, I believe, in real danger and this before the somnolent Englishman is awake to the fact. Apathy must have, and will deserve, fatal consequences. I beg to move.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF BALFOUR)

My Lords, my noble friend need have no doubts about either the sympathy of the Government as a whole or of the President of the Council, who appears, for some reason which I am quite unable to understand, to be regarded as lukewarm in the case which he has so eloquently expounded. We are entirely in agreement with him that the pollution of rivers is a great evil. We are entirely in agreement with him that it is an evil which is increasing. Population is growing and with population, inevitably, the difficulties of sewage. The habits of the people are altering and they are altering in a manner which, very admirable in itself, inflicts a greater and greater strain upon the water supplies of the country. The pollution from manufacturing sources is augmented at the same time. The level of the underground water, as he rightly observed, is diminishing, though I hope—in fact I am sure—there is no immediate danger of a water famine in this country. It would be cruel indeed to reflect that we should have to go through such a June and July as we have experienced in the last few weeks, and yet be in want of water.

I entirely agree with him that the fishing industry, both from the point of view of the economic supply of valuable food and from the enjoyment it gives to a very large section of the population, is a real national interest. As for the beauty of rural England, of which he so admirably spoke, there is not one of your Lordships, I am sure, who would not feel with him that that has already suffered terribly under the growth of manufactures which have nothing to do with the water supply, nothing to do with pollution, but have to do with the emission of masses of unconsumed carbon which make whole districts that were once the glory of the country gloomy regions under a perpetual pall of smoke. We are all agreed as to the magnitude of the evil. We are all anxious to diminish it. The question is, how is that to be done?

There are only two possible means, so far as I am aware, by which this embarrassing problem may be attacked, and both of those means not only may be used but must be used. One is increased efficiency of administration and the other is increased knowledge. My noble friend thinks there is a great deal to be done in the way of increased efficiency of administration. It is on that that he principally relies, as I understand it, for the diminution of this national evil. I am very far indeed from suggesting that improved administration is not possible, and, if possible, is not eminently desirable, and the Government propose to do all they can to further that method of attack. How is it to be done? You may legislate, you may increase the severity of your laws against pollution, you may fill the Statute Book with provisions inflicting penalties upon those who pollute. But on that line you will always come across this difficulty, as my noble friend would be the first to agree, that you may have to choose between destroying your manufactures and maintaining the purity of your rivers.

In many cases it is quite impossible to give a decision in favour of the purity of rivers and against the continuance of manufactures. It is on the manufactures that the population live. Our business is, if we can, to make their life as desirable as proper surroundings and cleanly surroundings may make it, but it would be folly if, in our endeavour to make those surroundings as cleanly as we desire, we destroyed the very means by which the population live. I am quite aware that I am not contradicting my noble friend. He would agree, I believe, with that particular proposition. At all events every authority from the Ministry of Health downwards does often, and must often, come into collision in carrying out the laws preserving the purity of rivers with the dilemma of which I speak, and in deciding which horn of that dilemma is to be chosen they are constantly compelled to refrain from enforcing the extreme penalties of the law recognising that to do so might, or might not, be a method of securing the purity of the rivers, but would undoubtedly be a method of securing the ruin of what are at present prosperous and populous communities.

That is one of the difficulties which has to be met and has to be faced. Lip-service is given; it was given—though not merely lip-service—by my noble friend. He admitted that you have to consider the cost of production in dealing with this question, that in many cases no method of purification is possible, and that in other cases it may be possible but is too costly to adopt. How can you deal with that merely by bringing into operation new laws, by adding to your Statute Book, by piling penalty on penalty? You cannot do it that way. The only possible way of dealing with that situation is to find some scientific method by which you will be able to get over the difficulty which is presented, not by the weakness of your laws, but by the difficulty of dealing with the lags of nature. Your laws you can leave, and do leave, and have to leave in many cases, unused to compel the polluter of rivers to abstain from pollution. You cannot do it. That is because you have not learned enough to master the laws of nature, and if you do not master the laws of nature it matters very little what laws you put upon your Statute Book.

I shall deal more with that in a moment, but I entirely agree with my noble friend that probably, indeed certainly, more co-operation is required, that what we have learned from river boards' administration shows that it is well worth considering whether that system may not be extended with advantage and that possibly fresh legislation, or the amendment of existing legislation, should be considered and, may be, adopted. We also agree that the body which is to deal with that should not be a. Departmental body but that it should be an inter-Departmental body. It cannot be an executive body, as some of my noble friend's supporters would desire. That would mean a new Government Department with executive powers, with a Minister responsible to Parliament and answering for the Department in Parliament. I do not think anybody who considers all that such a scheme would involve, would for a moment desire that in addition to the Ministry of Health and the Fisheries Board You should have a super-Minister managing and responsible for another Department putting into effect the laws which exist and perhaps enforcing new laws. But we do think that there should be an Advisory Committee, representing the Ministry of Health and the fishery boards, and not only do we think so but we have already decided upon the Chairman of that Committee, Sir Horace Monro, a gentleman well known to many noble Lords, and they will set to work to deal in an advisory capacity with new legislation, with setting up new river boards, with inducing responsible local bodies to co-operate with each other and with carrying out all those admirable objects on which my noble friend has dilated and which can, we think, be better dealt with by such an Advisory Committee, representing all the Departments concerned, than by any other method that has been suggested.

Before leaving this point I would add a word of caution. Do not let it be supposed that nothing is being done, or has been done, to diminish the curse of polluted rivers. The worst of all the sources of pollution—not, alas! the only one—is sewage, and I am informed that in the financial year that ended on March 31 last loans were sanctioned by the Minister of Health of no less than £2,500,000, not for dealing with sewage as a whole, but for diminishing the sources of pollution. Authority was given. I believe, for loans amounting to £5,000,000 to deal with sewage, and one half of that sum has been devoted to the purpose of preventing sewage from further polluting the rivers of this country. It is therefore evident that much is being done with our present means of knowledge, though they are, alas! very inadequate. There is one point on which—though I speak with diffidence on the matter—I think my noble friend somewhat exaggerated the evils of the present condition of things. I refer to the effect of our tarred roads upon the fish in the streams. What he said was perfectly true with regard to tar made from coal, but I understand that Trinidad tar does not contain the noxious substances which have such disastrous effects upon fish life, and I confess that I think that a local authority has no excuse for using, in the making and upkeep of our roads, any form of tar that is injurious to fish life when it is in a position to obtain tar Which has none of those noxious properties.

I think that the very fact that we in the last year spent or borrowed for the purification of rivers £2,500,000, and that we are still suffering from all the evils which my noble friend so eloquently described, forces us to the inevitable conclusion that the greatest of all our present needs is further knowledge. I hope and I believe that our knowledge of how to deal with the greatest of all the evils—namely, sewage—is increasing. There was a Royal Commission which, before the War, made a very large number of Reports and made special mention of a method of dealing with sewage, called by the somewhat unattractive name of activated sludge, which they were of opinion is of great promise. It has been largely cultivated in the Birmingham area, of which my noble friend spoke with quite correct appreciation, and it has been tried elsewhere. There still remains much to be done in bringing that process, and perhaps other processes dealing with sewage, to the point of success, but my noble friend will be glad to hear that, on the Committee dealing with the scientific and research side of this problem which the Department for which I am responsible are setting up, the gentleman who was at the head of the admirable work done in the Birmingham district is going to take a place.

The difficulty, however, though sewage is the greatest cause of our ills, is far from being confined to sewage. We are apt to advocate with enthusiasm a particular operation, looking only at the good side of it, forgetting that almost all these advances have a dark side or a less good side as well as the side that excites our particular enthusiasm. This is specially true of some of the manufacturing effluents which cause so much ill to our waters. For example, my noble friend said quite justly that pollution was a great curse to the farmers and that the streams going through their fields were so noxious that the cattle could not drink from them. There is a class of reformers who, with universal approval, so far as I know, say that nothing can be better both for the general health and for the interests of agriculture than the promotion of the milk and cheese industry. But milk and cheese are great offenders in the matter of pollution, and the farmers who produce milk and make cheese are themselves among the industrialists who, in the course of their trade and through no fault of their own, are polluting the very rivers that flow through some of the most beautiful parts of our country. I have little doubt that that is an evil with which, before any great lapse of time, we can effectually deal. I hope so and believe so. But it requires scientific investigation. The method of dealing with it is not satisfactorily settled. It must be investigated and nothing could show more clearly how difficult it is in a progressive manufacturing country like our own to carry out any great industrial development without adding to, or making more difficult, the very problem with which my noble friend desires to deal.

Take another case. We have had debates in this House and in the other House in which the speakers have treated low temperature carbonisation as one of the cures for the coal mining industry, which presents to us at this moment some of the greatest and most difficult problems of an industrial kind. They ask what progress is being made and whether low temperature carbonisation is going to be a success on a large scale. They ask if it is coming to the rescue of our coal industry. I greatly hope that it is, but I have to tell the House at the same time that, if it does, it will present a problem of pollution of an extremely difficult kind. High temperature carbonisation, one of the by-products of which is ammonia, produces an ammonia which at present prices barely pays for its extraction. There have been methods of producing synthetic ammonia which run the ammonia, which is the natural product of high temperature carbonisation, very hard. So that on the great gas industry of the country and the high temperature carbonisation industry of the country the production of ammonia will, I am afraid, soon lay a considerable burden. But with low temperature carbonisation, the ammonia which is one of the natural byproducts of low temperature carbonisation, is in so dilute a form that by universal consent it cannot pay for its extraction by any process at present known to industry. How are you going to deal with that problem? You have there the dilemma of which I have spoken in a very plain and simple form. If you want, as we all want, to see low temperature carbonisation made a paying concern, you will have a new problem of a specially difficult kind in connection with pollution.

Take the coke ovens actually in use now. The Tees used to be not only a most beautiful river, but a river in which the salmon fisheries were of the most valuable kind. Those fisheries have, I understand, been completely destroyed by the effluents of the coke ovens. How are you going to deal with that? We lament the present condition of our steel industry. Our steel industry largely depends upon our coke industry. If you increase the price of coke, you injure one of the greatest and one of the most depressed of our basic industries. How is that dilemma to be dealt with by the co-ordination of local authorities, or by the creation of river boards, or by any other of the excellent but inadequate specifics mentioned by my noble friend? I will take another case. We have had to-day, since the House met, a debate in which the lamentable position of British agriculture was one of the incidental arguments used with great effect by the speakers on both sides of the House. One of the methods by which the Government have desired to improve the condition of British agriculture, as well as to supply the population of this country with one of the necessities of modern life, has been the beet sugar industry. Immense public subventions have been made to that industry. It is still in an infant state. Everybody desires to see it expand, but the effluents of the beet industry are extremely poisonous and nobody has yet, so far as I am aware, found a method of adequately dealing with them.

If it does not weary your Lordships, will take a third case. Of all the great industrial developments of recent years which owe their existence to British invention and British skill, the artificial silk industry is by far the most important. There is no other, so far as I am aware, which deserves that description and which compares with it. The effluents of the artificial silk industry are extremely noxious. How are you going to deal with them? Are they going to be dealt with by having an increased co-operation between local authorities? By river boards? Local authorities and river boards are required; they may help in the application of any discovery which may be made on the subject. But the discovery has to be made and the best machinery for making the discovery is not, on the whole, through these local authorities, who do most valuable work, no doubt, in many cases but whose officials, able as they are, have to carry on their heavy and urgent duties day by day and, broadly speaking, cannot be expected to carry on the kind of research which is obviously required in dealing with a situation of that sort.

Is it wise to underrate the work which has to be done outside administration and outside legislation? The Departments concerned have devised a method of improving administration. They have devised a method by which advice can be given on legislative improvement but I repeat, although perhaps it is regarded as a method of showing indifference to the cause, that you must have something more than that and that something more than that can only be supplied by the work of some such organisation as my Department has already set up, and to which I have already referred, for carrying on this work of research. I can give the names of the gentlemen who are on this Committee, and I am sure they will receive universal approval. They have been selected in consultation with the other Departments of the State who have to deal with this subject, and they contain the names of men of science, who have devoted great attention to this subject. If they cannot help us solve the difficulties, or many of the difficulties, to which I have referred, I do not know where we are to look.

The gentlemen in question are: Sir Robert Robertson, K.B.E., F.R.S., Professor V. H. Blackman, F.R.S., Professor F. G. Donnan, C.B.E., F.R.S., Sir Alexander Houston, K.B.E., C.V.O., Mr. H. C. Whitehead, M.I.C.E., and Dr. G. C. Bourne, F.R.S. I think it is the last named gentleman, or Mr. Whitehead, of whom I spoke just now as having done such admirable work in connection with the Birmingham scheme of dealing with sewage. To these gentlemen, as assessors, are added, Mr. H. G. Maurice, C.B., Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr. W. L. Calderwood, F.R.S.E., Fishery Board for Scotland, Mr. D. Ronald, M.I.C.E., F.R.S.E., Scottish Board of Health, and Mr. R. J. Simpson, O.B.E., Ministry of Health. I ought to say that the Director is Dr. H. T. Calvert, M.B.E., who is, I suppose, the highest authority on this kind of investigation that we possess.

That Water Pollution Research Board is actually at work. It has held meetings. It is conducting its investigations. It will have to co-ordinate and collect a vast mass of information, now scattered over the world; but do not let there be any delusion that we alone are troubled with these problems. It is true that we are troubled with them more than any other country because we are the most crowded country, our rivers are small rivers, and our population is growing. Therefore, we feel the evil more acutely than our neighbours. But research is going on in Germany and America, and I know it is going on in Holland, and no doubt in other countries. In our own country research in a scattered way is largely going on, but all this mass of information requires to be collected and co-ordinated before the best use can be made of it. Before we can effectively add to it the Board must know not only what it is but must take steps—and they will take steps—to see that all the information which is of value is distributed to the authorities who are responsible for the purity of our streams.

Of course, the collection of information is not all that has to be done. It is knowledge which must be added to as well as co-ordinated, and unquestionably this Committee, working in co-operation with all the local authorities—in co-operation, as it must, and will, with every scientific authority in the Kingdom upon this subject—may, and I am sure will, do much to help in the practical solution of this pressing problem. The last thing that the Government think of doing is to belittle the need for a great effort, but we feel emphatically that merely to what is called strengthen your legislation, which means, as a rule, increasing your penalties and multiplying your prosecutions, is not the way of salvation. They feel that while closer co-operation and better organisation of your local authorities may do much it cannot do everything.

I have doubly failed in my intentions if I have not persuaded those who have done me the honour of listening to me how difficult are the actual industrial and scientific problems before us; if I have not been able to show your Lordships that those problems are, from the nature of our civilisation, increasing problems—increasing partly because the sewage question must grow with a growing population and also because the manufacturing problems must also grow with the growth and progress of our manufactures. Most of these great industrial movements carry with them inevitable evils and inevitable difficulties. It was science and invention which gave us the inventions. It must be science and invention to which we must look for dealing with the collateral evils which those inventions have produced. I believe and hope that that far-reaching scheme of reform which I have endeavoured to outline to your Lordships, including, as it does, methods of obtaining improved legislation where improved legislation is required, including, as it does, machinery for inducing a closer co-operation with your local authorities, and new organisations where new organisations are required, and including, as it does, the best machinery we can devise for dealing scientifically with scientific problems, may do something to mitigate an evil which every one of us must deplore.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, I desire in the first instance to thank Lord Mildmay for having initiated what I hope may be a helpful debate. I also want to thank the noble Earl who last addressed the House for the step forward which he has indicated the Government are prepared to take in connection with a matter of vital importance, not merely to fish but to the whole health of the community.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

And have begun to take.

LORD GAINFORD

And have begun to take. I have no authority, as I had when I addressed the noble Earl on February 15 last, to speak on behalf of the fishery boards of this country, of the water boards, and all the medical officers, and other local authorities who are interested in the health of the community. On that occasion we made representations to him in regard to something more being done by the Govern-men, than has hitherto been done. Like Lord Mildmay I have had the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee for six years, and of doing our utmost to try to bring all the authorities into one co-ordinated body, to work together in order to cleanse and purify the rivers and estuaries of this country. We have succeeded in doing a good deal but we have come to the end of our tether, and on February 15 we asked certain definite things from the Government. I want to point out where the Government are not quite meeting us in the views which we then expressed on behalf of all these bodies, which met together and put forward the points upon which they had agreed. What we asked for was the appointment of a permanent Central Committee of five representatives of Government Departments and one or two representatives of boards, which would have power to co-ordinate the varying interests with the object of preventing or reducing the pollution of our rivers and estuaries. To some extent our request has been already met by the Advisory Committee which has been established, but the noble Earl has not satisfied me in regard to the powers which this body will possess.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

There are two bodies created. There is a body which represents the two Departments concerned. That deals with administration, with all the things which are out side scientific research. There is another body entirely devoted to scientific research, which, of course, will co-operate and communicate with, and receive advice from the first Committee, but which is entirely different, under a different Department, and with an entirely different personnel.

LORD GAINFORD

I am glad the noble Earl made that explanation. But it does not quite meet my point, because what the noble Earl seems to have set before himself is a problem of a scientific character.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

Not a bit. There are two problems. I am very sorry to interrupt, and am very much ashamed that my own exposition was so obscure. I said there was an administrative problem—that is number one. To deal with that we have appointed a Committee representing the Departments concerned. There is a scientific problem—number two; for that we have appointed a Committee representing the only Department of the Government which has to deal with science. They will co-operate, but they must not be confused; on the contrary, they must be sharply distinguished.

LORD GAINFORD

I am glad the noble Earl has made it quite clear that there is an administrative department which is going to be set up as well as the scientific one. But it is the practical question rather than the scientific one on which I want to speak. Those of us who have sat upon this Committee representing fishery boards, the Federation of British Industries, and other organisations, feel that science has reached a position which will enable practical steps to be taken to a much greater extent than they have been taken hitherto. But, as the noble Earl knows, we have been met by what I may call inter-Departmental jealousy. You have the Ministry of Health, which is anxious to secure what I may term pure water to any amount for the community. You have another Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, which is anxious to help the beet industry, and for that purpose is prepared to pollute water. You have great interests, such as water boards, which want on every occasion to take out a certain amount of water from the rivers independently of the interests of the fish in them. You have the Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries anxious that in a period of drought there should be sufficient water flowing down the rivers to maintain fish alive. In this way we have found that different departments even in one Government office take up different interests, and that it is absolutely essential that there should be a Central Committee set up, with an independent Chairman, such as the man who has distinguished himself at the Local Government Board, and who, we hope, will now take an independent view, not a purely departmental view. That is all to the good.

But where I think there is a great danger is in practical steps not being taken which can be taken at the present time. The noble Earl said we had to choose between destroying a manufacture or securing the purity of a river. Speaking generally, I do not think that is true. It may be true in some cases that the alternative may be between purifying a river or stopping an industry, but science has already reached a position which enables most industries to find a cheap method by which the effluents which now go into our rivers can be converted into non-poisonous effluents. Take, for instance, the West Riding of Yorkshire. The improvement in the rivers flowing into the Ouse has been extraordinary in the last few years, and what has that been due to? It has been due to the action taken by district councils in the area of the watershed of the Ouse.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

Are all your rivers pure?

LORD GAINFORD

They are not all pure, and I will explain why. In the area concerned there are fifty rural districts. Of that number twenty-nine do not allow any poisonous effluents from any works to enter rivers. The result in those areas has been an extraordinary improvement in the purity of the rivers flowing through those districts. But there are sixteen areas which allow poisonous effluents to go into those rivers, and there are four which appear to be not very much concerned, and which give conditional permission. Action has been taken by the twenty-nine authorities of a very severe kind, and they have prosecuted anybody who poisoned the rivers. That has not stopped the industries, because where an action of that kind is taken time is always given to an industry to remedy the defects and to treat the effluents in the most practical way. I am quite sure a great deal can be done. What I take exception to is that we have hitherto been studying too much the scientific side, although I do not underrate its value, and I want it to be continued, and all the research money we can spend wisely on this work ought to be spent. What I do say is that there is a great deal of poisonous matter going into our rivers which ought not to go in, and when the noble Earl said that sewage was the worst evil he said what was perfectly true.

The Ministry of Health insists upon this sewage going into our rivers borne by gravity; at the same time it expects pure water to be provided. There is and has been a pressure exerted in many cases to deal with sewage disposal so that the sewage shall not go into our rivers. I will take the case of the river with which I am conversant as Chairman of the Fishery Board and as one who has served on municipal and county bodies in the district. I know that the town of Darlington on the river Tees has spent over £100,000 in keeping its sewage out of the river. The result is that part of the river adjacent to that large manufacturing town on the banks of the Tees is pure, while a little lower down you have towns like Stockton, Thornaby and Middlesbrough that do not attend to their sewage in the same way that Darlington does. At the present time 250 miles of main sewers from the town of Middlesbrough discharge direct into the Tees and destroy the fish life. It seems to me that a body ought to have power, not of course to call upon corporations to spend enormous sums of money in order to alter their sewage disposal system, but to prevent any further extension of water-borne sewage and gradually to reduce that which already exists. In that way I think a solution of this problem can be found. The country does not realise the importance of the purity of our rivers, or there would be a much greater outcry about the filth that is allowed to go into the rivers of this country.

Let me take another case from the river Tees, to which the noble Earl alluded. It is perfectly true that in 1923 160,000 lbs. of salmon and trout were caught at the estuary by the nets. These were migratory salmon and trout wanting to go up the river. Last year instead of 160,000 lbs. the quantity taken was 7,700 lbs. The noble Earl said that diminution was due entirely to the acids connected with coke oven plants, but last year, during the strike, there were no acids going into the river from those plants, because there were no coke ovens at work. Yet the poison was proved to be going on, not through the tar acids but through the sewage. It is the sewage just as much as the tar acids that has prevented the Tees from again becoming and maintaining itself as a pure river suitable for the production of fish life. The noble Earl alluded to the fact that £2,500,000 had been borrowed last year in order to diminish sewage. That is another indication that something is being done by some authorities, but it is not nearly enough. The very fact that that is being done does indicate that much more might be done in the same direction.

My only criticism to-day is that these Committees do not represent any outside authority interested in the work. I am not saying the individuals on those bodies are not competent to deal with the subject. I do not understand exactly what their powers will be, although I am quite sure we shall have their good will. Nor do I know whether the Standing Advisory Committee which was established in 1921 is to continue its operations and to advise the Government and these Committees. I feel, however, that a step forward has been taken, and so far as I am able to speak on behalf of fishery boards, I hope the step that the Government has taken will produce good results. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that it is advisable that the Committees should keep very closely in touch with industrialists as well as with the various authorities—water boards and others. There is a disposition, created by the Advisory Committee that has been sitting for the last six years, to secure co-operation between industrialists and the fishery boards, and what we on that Committee feel is that, although a great deal has been done, we are not getting full use of such powers as exist. What is required by those who now pollute the rivers is not only scientific research work, but practical men to go round and tell them what are the steps that they ought to take in order to treat the effluents which go into the rivers and estuaries. If something practical of that character could be undertaken by the Government officials working in co-operation with these Committees a great deal could be done to improve the purity of our rivers.

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I am a disciple of the gentle art and I am sure every man in this country who uses either a net or a rod will be very grateful to Lord Mildmay of Flete for calling attention to the pollution of rivers. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, stated that we are to have an Advisory Committee presided over by Sir Horace Monro. I am sure that statement will please every man in the country who catches fish with a net or a rod. Besides that, the noble Earl held out great hope with regard to the pollution of rivers in this country, because he told us that expert scientists were to deal with the question of pollution by effluents seat into the rivers by manufacturers and others. My noble friend Lord Mildmay of Flete mentioned the Salmon and Trout Association. I am one of the oldest members of that Association. My only reason for stating that is that a great deal of research is being carried out by that body. I agree with Lord Mildmay of Flete that it is much better to advise and help before you prosecute. There is now hope that the rivers of this country will at all events be dealt with. I agree that the increasing population makes it more and more difficult to deal with this question of pollution, but there are means of dealing with it. The noble Lord who spoke last referred to the Tees and Darlington. I often pass through Darlington on my way to and from Scotland and I agree with him that this is a matter which can be dealt with in a certain way. But in regard to one of the other places he mentioned—Middlesbrough—that presents a different proposition altogether. I desire to thank the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for giving such hope to all those who make fishing an industry and get from it a great deal of money. There is more money to be made out of it when rivers get purer and means are taken to deal with this horrible state of affairs which exists in some parts of the country.

LORD MILDMAY OF FLETE

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for the attention he has given to the matter and I am most sincerely grateful to him. In his opening remarks he denounced coercive measures. I must have used very obscure language if I did not make it clear that I am as opposed as he is to coercion. I agree also that we must not injure industry. But there is so much pollution which could be stopped. It is the result sometimes of stupidity, but more generally of ignorance. The technical experts at the Ministry say: "We do not have sufficient opportunity of getting into close touch with the great manufacturing concerns and of enabling them to profit by the information we could place at their disposal." I welcome the establishment of a central authority, especially as it is to be presided over by Sir Horace Monro. It all comes to a question of what powers will be enjoyed by the new so-called Advisory Board, what will be the nature of its activities, and what initiative will be allowed to it. I renew my thanks to the noble Earl, the President of the Council, and I will not press my Motion for Papers.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.