RIVER BOARDS BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 09 December 1947 vol 153 cc6-77

2.43 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly:

[The Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Establishment of river boards for areas comprising whole of England and Wales except Thames, Lee and London areas.

1.—(1) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable, in accordance with the following provisions of this Act— (a) by order define areas (to be known as "river board areas") which shall between them comprise the whole of England and Wales, except the Thames and Lee catchment areas, the administrative county of London and any area adjoining that county which is not at the date of the passing of this Act included in any catchment area:

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE moved, in subsection (1), after "The Minister shall" to insert "after consultation with such interests as appear to them to be concerned." The noble Duke said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. As I indicated to your Lordships in the Second Reading debate, fishery interests have been rather disappointed that the Bill contained no schedule defining areas, because, after all, the real purpose of this Bill is to set up river boards. So far so good, but unless we know how these boards are to be constituted geographically, it is really almost impossible to know whether the Bill is a good or a bad one. And we were disappointed that areas were not defined in a schedule to the Bill. There is ample precedent for hoping that they would be so defined. After all, that course is recommended in the Third Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee, on which the Bill is founded, and a schedule is definitely promised in the White Paper entitled A National Water Policy, which was issued in 1944.

There is another precedent in that catchment areas were scheduled in the Land Drainage Bill of 1930, and the appropriate areas were also scheduled in the Electricity Act of 1947. The noble Earl who introduced this Bill on behalf of the Government said that the river board areas question was an extremely controversial issue and that he thought it would be far better to leave that issue out of the Bill so that it could be decided by subsequent consultation. With all respect to the noble Earl I think that that is not quite what Parliament is for. Parliament is not intended to act merely as a rubber stamp to register decisions which may be made by the noble Earl. It is intended to discuss controversial issues. While it may be very much easier for the noble Earl to settle these schedules in his own office, and issue them as an order later on, I submit that Parliament is not serving the country as it should unless it does discuss these controversial issues.

It is clearly impossible for me to move a schedule to the Bill. The grievance of the fishery interests is that consultation did not precede the introduction and tabling of this Bill in such a way that a schedule could have been included. In the circumstances, though I cannot move that a schedule be included, I can move that the Minister shall, before he issues a schedule, consult those interests which appear to be concerned. That would ensure that it was not a purely arbitrary schedule and that interests concerned had been consulted. With those few words I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, after ("shall") insert ("after consultation with such interests as appear to them to be concerned").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)

Viscount MERSEY

I should like to take this opportunity, if I may, to congratulate the noble Duke on having on the Second Reading of this Bill quoted several fines in Greek from Herodotus. I should also like to congratulate the editor of Hansard for having reproduced those lines so correctly. Certainly, in my own recollection and, I believe, in that of the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, sitting behind him—which is very much longer so far as this House is concerned than my own—Greek has never before been quoted so accurately or so appropriately as on that occasion. I feel, too, that in addition to congratulating the noble Duke for taking out such a relevant passage from Herodotus, I should also like to congratulate the House upon understanding it.

Lord SHEPHERD

I have an Amendment following this one on the Paper which has a similar purpose, and it may therefore meet with the convenience of the Committee if I say a few words now. Everyone is aware that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health are in the habit of holding informal consultations with organizations, through representatives, and with other persons interested. All of us would wish that work of that kind should continue. But friends, with whom I have been in contact quite recently, are somewhat taken aback by the terms of the First Schedule.

Paragraph 1 says: Before making an order to which this Schedule applies the Ministers shall cause notice of the intention to make the order and of the place where copies of the draft order and of any map referred to therein may be inspected and obtained, and of the time (not being less than 28 days) within which, and the manner in which, objections to the draft order may be made, to be published. … Paragraph 2 states: Before making the order the Ministers shall consider any objections which may be duly made to the draft order and may in any case cause a public local inquiry to be held with respect to any objections to the draft order. There is a feeling that that may mean that these informal discussions, which have taken place previously and have been so successful and so welcome, are to be dropped. Therefore, I very willingly put down an Amendment to ensure that there should be consultation before orders are framed and are published. I do not suppose it is in order to move the Amendment now, but that is what I want to say.

Lord SALTOUN

My Lords, would the noble Earl, in his reply, tell me, because I am afraid I am not very experienced in Parliamentary language, whether the words "statutory instrument" in Clause 31, subsection (1), imply that any order defining a board will be raised before Parliament for direct assent. I think that has some bearing on the case very ably put by the noble Duke, with which I entirely concur.

The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (The Earl of Huntingdon)

I must confess that for a Bill which met with such a measure of agreement on Second Reading, we have quite a considerable number of Amendments. Before answering the noble Duke, may I call the attention of your Lordships to the fact that this is essentially a compromise Bill? There are many interests involved and the Government have done their best to draft a measure which will meet these different interests so far as possible and will effect a reasonable compromise when, as may happen, those interests come into conflict. We may not therefore find complete agreement on some of these Amendments; and I hope your Lordships will bear in mind that in many cases we have to pursue a path of compromise. In regard to the noble Duke's Amendment, I should like to make our intention clear. As we said on Second Reading, the drawing up of river board areas is extremely complicated, and involves very far-reaching issues which no doubt in many cases will be very controversial. We thought therefore that it was better not to make this an issue of debate in bringing in the Bill, but rather to bring it in later. I want to make it clear that in no manner do we want to stop Parliament discussing these areas. In fact, there is every intention that such cases should be brought before Parliament and fully discussed.

I should like to give assurances to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about the preliminary discussions, which on these occasions have always been entered into by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and other Departments concerned. I can give him a whole-hearted assurance that these discussions will continue. They are the sources from which we draw our information and ideas for such a Bill as this The intended procedure for the defining of areas is as follows. The Minister and his advisers will consider a certain area, the ways and means, its advantages and disadvantages, and then will consult informally with the different bodies concerned. It would be almost impossible for the Minister to draw up adequate areas without consultation; and if he did so, he would soon learn his lesson by Parliamentary censure. Having gained this information and listened to the different points of view and criticisms that may be made, the Minister will proceed to draw up what he conceives to be the best possible area and will then define it.

Next comes the moment when we look to Parliament to discuss and criticize or confirm the area as the case may be. The noble Duke will see that it is laid down that if there are objections, the Minister can order a public inquiry and then, if the objections are maintained, Parliamentary procedure must be followed so that the whole subject is brought before Parliament for debate. The noble Duke says that the matter should be discussed at an earlier stage, but I submit it would be unnecessary to have it brought before Parliament before the Minister makes an order. We need do it only once. First there will be informal discussions, then the Minister will define the areas—the river board areas—he will listen to objections and if necessary order a public inquiry, and if the objections are proceeded with, the matter will be brought before Parliament. Thus we are giving full scope for debate both inside and outside Parliament. On these grounds I hope that the noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will not press their Amendments.

Earl DE LA WARR

This seemed to me so obviously an Amendment the Government would be likely to accept. Any Government would desire that the Bill should go through this House easily and, once the Bill became an Act, that the conduct of the Act should be easy and such as to have the confidence of those with whom they have to deal. The noble Earl made, if he will forgive me, a number of remarks which seemed to me to have no great relevance to the subject we are discussing. He told us that the Bill represented a compromise between a great number of varying interests. We all realized that that is so, but that is an argument in favour of seeing that all these different interests should be consulted before the definitions are made. I do ask him to reconsider the attitude he has taken. I assure him that none of us is going back on the friendliness we expressed on Second Reading. We are anxious to assist the passage of this Bill. It is in principle a good Bill. But I do hope the noble Earl is going to deal reasonably with us and tell us he will reconsider the matter.

Lord SALTOUN

Before the noble Earl replies I would like to point out that our attitude to the noble Duke's Amendment does rather depend on the meaning of the words in Clause 31 that all orders made under the Act "shall be made by statutory instrument." Does that mean, as the noble Earl seemed to me to imply, that when areas are defined and put in the form of an order and brought before Parliament, only when someone objects would this form of procedure apply? One would like to know where one stands.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The provision that the order shall be made "by statutory instrument" ensures that it will be printed and published and there is Parliamentary procedure in the Bill by which, if objections are made, the whole matter can be raised before Parliament. One very pertinent point is that there is no question of not consulting. Undoubtedly the Minister will consult all the authorities and all the interests concerned before drawing up the areas.

Earl DE LA WARR

Why not put that in the Bill?

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The reason it is not in the Bill is that it does seem a very unnecessary instruction. However, if the noble Lord feels very strongly about it, I would be prepared to look at it between now and Report. I would stress that there is no question of there not being consultation, but we do think it would be an unnecessary provision to include in the Bill.

The Marquess of SALISBURY

I am very grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said, but I would urge the necessity for considering the matter further. After all, to say that it is unnecessary is not a reason for not putting it in the Bill. Very often we have had to complain when the Government have asked for more powers than we have thought necessary, and they have said that situations might arise where such powers would be needed. We have heard that argument again and again. Here it is the opposite argument which is being used. It is reasonable to ask the Government to consult with those interested, and the experts concerned. It would give confidence to all interests to know that the Government were prepared to consult. I do hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will agree to consider the matter further, and, not only that, but that the Government will consider it sympathetically.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

It is obviously not a matter of principle, but purely one of drafting, as to whether one puts in a Bill something which will take place, but, as your Lordships feel so strongly about this, I shall be pleased to consider the matter between now and the Report stage, on the basis of slightly different wording, and to discuss with the noble Duke what can be done.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.3 p.m.

Lord ROCHESTER moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "except the Thames and Lee catchment areas," to insert: "the Thames as defined in Section one hundred and ninety-seven of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920."The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I am desirous of eliciting from the Government a statement that will remove an element of ambiguity, as I read it, in Clause 1 of the Bill. I recognize that the Government may not be able to accept the precise wording of this Amendment, as if: deals with a water area, whereas the Bill deals with land areas. Further, it may be considered that it might open the door to similar claims by other estuary authorities. As to that, I would only say that the Port of London Authority is in rather a different position from that of many other such authorities, if only because of their pollution powers under the original Act of 1903, which established the Port of London Authority. May I remind your Lordships that in his Second Reading Speech the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, admitted our exceptional position? I will not read the whole paragraph, but taking it from its context does not alter it. He said: It was thought undesirable to interfere with the powers of the Port of London Authority in relation to navigation and pollution. As to the possible objection to including in the Bill a water area as distinct from a land area, may I suggest that possibly that point could be met by expressing it in different terms—say, for instance, "areas the drainage of which is directed into the Thames below Teddington Lock." But I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill this specific question: Is it, or is it not, the intention to include the Thames below Teddington Lock among the areas excluded from Clause 1, leaving them to be dealt with, if at all, by an order under Clause 7? In any case, will the noble Earl tell us, without committing himself to any precise form of wording at the moment, whether he will, at least, agree to consider the elucidation of this point between now and Report stage to see whether the ambiguity in question can be eliminated?

I know the point is very technical, but it is none the less important. Let me try and put the need for greater clarity as succinctly as I can. It is solely a question of the interpretation of Clause 1 (1) (a). Let me remind your Lordships that Section 2 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, provides that catchment areas are the areas specified in Part I of the First Schedule to that Act; and Part I of the First Schedule describes catchment areas as "Areas the drainage of which is directed to the following rivers or arterial drains: Thames above Teddington Lock." Clause 1 (1) of this Bill provides that the Minister shall: (a) by order define areas (to be known as 'river board areas') which shall between them comprise the whole of England and Wales, except the Thames and Lee catchment areas, the administrative county of London and any area adjoining that county which is not at the date of the passing of this Act included in any catchment area.

The Port of London Authority wish to be quite clear that the exclusion of the River Thames below Teddington Lock is coextensive with the exclusion set out in Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, after ("areas") insert ("the Thames as defined in Section one hundred and ninety-seven of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920."),—(Lord Rochester)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I gather that the noble Lord's Amendment is more for the purpose of clarification than anything else. I can give him the assurance that the Thames below Teddington Lock will be excluded from the river board areas. This is a difficult problem. You have on the banks of the Thames different areas which will obviously have to be turned into river board areas, and flowing through them you get the main tidal waters of the Thames. However, as. the Port of London Authority exercises such particular and special powers in regard to navigation, pollution, and other things, obviously that part of the Thames would have to be excluded from the other river board areas. If the noble Lord is not satisfied with the drafting of our clause, and feels that it is not clear, we would be pleased to consider it and discuss different wording between now and the Report stage. I can give him that assurance, and hope that it will satisfy him.

Lord ROCHESTER

Following what was said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, I cannot help feeling that it would be wiser to have it in the Bill, if a form of words could be agreed between the Port of London Authority and the Ministry. However, I am obliged to the noble Earl for the assurance which he has given, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Definition of river board areas and constitution of river boards.

(2) An order establishing a river board shall provide for the appointment of such number of members not exceeding forty as may be specified in the order, who shall be appointed as follows:

1. (a) one member shall be appointed by the Ministers;
2. (b) such number, not being less than three-fifths or more than two-thirds of the remaining members, as may be specified in the order shall be appointed by the councils of the counties and county boroughs whose area, or any part of whose area, is included in the river board area;
3. (c) the remainder of the members shall be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and shall consist of—
1. (i) persons appointed, after consultation with the drainage boards whose districts are wholly or partly included in the river board area, to represent those boards, and persons appointed to represent that portion, if any, of the river board area for which drainage boards might be, but have not been, established; and
2. (ii) persons appointed to represent fishery interests in the river board area.

(4) Where it appears to the Ministers that, owing to the small estimated amount of the contribution to be made by the council of any county or county borough as aforesaid, the council ought not to appoint a member of the river board, the Ministers may direct that that council shall be represented by a member appointed by agreement between that council and the council of any other county or county borough concerned, or, in default of agreement between the councils, by a member appointed by the Ministers to represent the councils jointly.

(6) The councils of counties and county boroughs and the Ministers and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in making appointments under this section shall have regard to the desirability of including, as far as practicable, among the members appointed by them persons having a practical knowledge of the various matters with respect to which river boards exercise functions, and the councils of counties and county boroughs shall not appoint any officer or servant of the council or of any other local authority.

(7) Any order defining a river board area or establishing a river board shall be made in accordance with Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, and Part III of that Schedule shall apply with respect to the validity of any such order; and Part II of that Schedule shall, in the case of any order defining a river board area, apply for the purpose of making the order subject to special parliamentary procedure in the circumstances specified in that Part.

3.8 p.m.

Lord SALTOUN moved, in subsection (2), to omit "forty" and insert "fifty." The noble Lord said: I do not think I need take up much of your Lordships' time in recommending the Amendment standing in my name. It is connected with the Amendment next but one on the Paper, and the two ought to be considered together. The first thing I would like to urge upon the noble Earl is that this Amendment is only permissive. There is no necessity to have a river board of fifty, unless it is so desired, but I think this enlargement is important, especially if it can be accepted with the substitution of "four-sevenths" for "three-fifths" in line 14. The effect of it will be to maintain what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, laid some stress on in his Second Reading speech—the majority of the board consisting of representatives of the ratepayers—but it will allow room on the board for other interests, which in the case of individual river boards it may be advisable to include.

The noble Earl will notice that further down on the Amendment Paper we have some Amendments on the subject of fishery interests. Fishery interests are not the only ones one would wish to include. There are other interests which might well be included. Alpine climbers and mountaineering associations might also have an interest in this matter. But fishery interests are obviously the most important. The object of this Bill is to restrain, and if possible to correct, the constant and growing pollution of our rivers. This Amendment will enable the Minister to adjust matters so that that great object which we all equally desire can be attained. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, leave out ("forty") and insert ("fifty").—(Lord Saltoun.)

Lord STRABOLGI

I would like briefly to support the Amendments on this subject, especially the one standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. As he says, it does provide a larger proportion for representatives of fisheries and drainage and other interests, and does not seek to take away the majority membership from the local authorities. It will give great flexibility and will make it easier for my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon to accept Amendments later on strengthening the fishery representation on the Bill.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

There is a rather important underlying principle here. It is not at all a trivial Amendment but a very important one. The first question that arises is as to the total number of people on the river board; the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, proposes fifty, instead of forty. That is a most difficult point to argue. If a board is too big it becomes rather unwieldy, and it becomes difficult to attain the agreement necessary for the efficient undertaking of the various administrative and executive functions of the board. If, on the other hand, the board is too small, then it is very difficult to get adequate representation of different interests. After a lot of discussion and serious thinking we came to the conclusion that forty was a reasonable number to have. I do not pretend that there is any magic in the number of forty, or that it is the only possible number we could have chosen, but unless there are very strong reasons I would suggest to your Lordships that that figure will comprise a board which can work together, carry out its functions, and yet is large enough to bring in an adequate representation of all interests.

Lord SALTOUN

May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? There is nothing in my Amendment to preclude having boards of forty. It enables you to have fifty when, for special reasons, you want to bring in outside interests.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I understand the noble Lord's point. The larger the board, the great number of outside interests we could bring in. That is obviously true. On the other hand, we are reluctant, from past experience, to make it too big or too unwieldy; so we suggest that the upward limit should be forty. That really is contingent upon the composition of the board. If we altered the figure of forty we could to some extent keep the proportion the same. The real point at issue is the proportion which will be divided between the drainage and fishery interests and the local authorities—the county boroughs and county councils, etcetera. That, of course, is a very difficult point and, if your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, I will try to explain how we have arrived at those proportions and why we think that, on the whole, the figures set out in the Bill are probably as good as could reasonably be decided.

One member is appointed by the Minister, and I do not think anyone will disagree with that. We have observed two principles in regard to representation. In the first place, we follow the principle that: we can allow representation on the Board only in the case of people who are contributing a substantial sum of money towards the expenses of the board. That does limit and cut out many interests which would otherwise be pressing to be represented. However, having once got the various interests on the board, we do not divide up the proportions strictly according to contributions. That principle would lead to a great deal of difficulty because, for instance, in one area we might find that drainage and fisheries had contributed relatively little to the board. Yet it would be unfair—and unwise—if we followed that principle through to its logical conclusion, perhaps to the extent of barring them in those cases from representation. Therefore, what we would do, having decided the proportions of people who are to serve on the board, would be to say to them: "You are not representing your sectional interest in such and such a proportion. What we want you to do is to work the board as one. We want you to think of the interests of the river board area, rather than your own sectional interests."

Once that principle is adopted—which is, after all, the same principle we are trying to infuse into our county agricultural committees—we get a completely different point of view on the various problems which will arise. In order that the various interests should not force their own point of view but would instead contribute to the knowledge which will be needed on the board, we thought that this particular provision of the Bill; "such number, not being less than three-fifths or more than two-thirds" would be a fair and wise proportion. After all, the local authorities, on the whole, do represent the ratepayers. They represent the industries and the people that come under them.

This would leave quite a reasonable proportion to be divided between fishery and drainage interests, but of course the question next arises as to whether that proportion should be defined in the Bill or whether it should be left to the discretion of the Minister. I suggest to your Lordships that it should he given as a discretion to the Minister. There is so much variation between different districts in this country—so much flexibility is needed—that I think it would be difficult if with each river board we had to discuss the actual proportion between drainage and fisheries. It would be better in practice to leave that to the Minister who, after all, is Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. He has to be responsible for both the drainage interests and the fishery interests, and I suggest that whoever fills that particular office, from whatever Party, would give a fair and reasonable proportion in each area. As the areas vary so much I do suggest that that should be left to his discretion.

We have set out in the Bill this proportion: the local authorities so much, the member chosen by the Minister and the certain proportion left for drainage and fisheries. I do not pretend that that is necessarily the ideal or perfect figure, but considering the difficulties of the situation I suggest that it is a reasonable compromise which should fulfil the functions for which the boards have been set up.

Lord SALTOUN

I do not propose to press this Amendment, but I would like to offer some observations to the noble Earl and beg him to consider the matter again between now and the next stage. I do so in consequence of what he himself has said. He has said that in order to deal with this question of pollution we want river boards which are placed into one homogeneous whole. As between forty and fifty there is very little difference, and your Lordships know that there are many boards of fifty working together quite well. The point is this. If there is to be two-thirds local government representation in a board of forty, that means that each individual is very much more of an individual than if four-sevenths of the total were local government authority representatives in a board of fifty.

Local government authorities' representatives, it is quite true, are paying the money under this Bill, but on the question of whether town A up-river is polluting the water that goes down to town B there may be some division. Town B will not be so keen on putting its own house in order as in putting A's house in order. The more people we get on the board, and the greater number of people who are in this matter what I would call pure-minded, and who really have disinterested reasons for purifying the rivers, without thinking so much of the expense involved, the more likely we are to fuse the board into one homogeneous whole. For that reason I beg the noble Earl to make representations in the proper quarter on that point. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.23 p.m.

Earl DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2) (b), to substitute "one-third" for "three-fifths." The noble Earl said: The principle of this Amendment has already been discussed in connexion with the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I am a little encouraged to think that the noble Earl will look in a friendly way at this proposal, because he has stressed very strongly the principle—with which I agree—that the Minister should have the maximum discretion in fixing the composition, in view of the vast variety of interests with which he has to deal. At the present moment the Minister's discretion, in the Bill as it is drafted, is very restricted. He is indeed tied down, whatever the circumstances and whatever his private judgment may be, to having the land drainage authorities in a permanent minority and the counties and county boroughs in a permanent majority. It seems to me that that is an undue restriction on the discretion of the Minister.

It is perfectly true that usually the counties and county boroughs are the majority-contributing authorities; but I think the noble Earl will agree with me that there have been occasions and I think there are likely to be perhaps a great number, when land drainage authorities in fact make at least 50 per cent. contribution, and possibly more. It does seem to me that in a case like that the Minister should have power to extend the proportion of the land drainage authorities' representation at the expense of the other interests. Therefore I beg to propose this Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, leave out ("three-fifths") and insert ("four-sevenths").—(Earl De La Warr.)

Lord ADDINGTON

Perhaps I may be allowed to add a word or two expressing the views of the local authority. They naturally feel very strongly that the proportion of representation already laid down by Clause 2 (2) (b) should not be reduced, at any rate to anything like the extent suggested by the Amendment. After all, it is the local authorities who are going to provide nearly all the money for these boards; and it is surely a principle of our Constitution that they should therefore be fully and adequately represented. They feel, too, that that representation should be divided almost exactly between counties and county boroughs in proportion to the amounts contributed by them towards the expenses of these river boards. I should like also to refer to one further point, on subsection (6) of this clause. They feel that they should have power to appoint to these river boards such representatives as they think fit, and that in certain circumstances they should be officers and not necessarily members of a local authority.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

Here we get a very good example of the two points of view—the local authorities and the drainage interests. I think it is a very good illustration of the way we have had to steer a middle course and effect what we think a fair and reasonable compromise. But I should like to point this out to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I think the idea behind his remarks is that there are certain areas in England, such as the Great Ouse or the Welland areas, where there are extremely large financial contributions from the drainage boards in what would be the river board area; but these are very rare cases. Even where they exist you still get this problem, that the area is going to include many counties. It would be very difficult in such circumstances to have even one member per county and if you extend the drainage representation strictly on a proportionate basis there would be practically nothing left for the representation of the many other interests involved.

Lord SALTOUN

That is even more reason for having fifty.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

That may be, but it is a different point. There is another aspect to this matter. If one did use that argument the counter argument must inevitably be used, that: i we accept these exceptional areas where the drainage authority is contributing a very large amount, then in areas where the drainage authority contributes practically nothing, and there is a very large proportion of urban area, the representation for drainage would be reduced almost to nothing. For these reasons I beg the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment, recognizing that we have done our best to make a fair compromise.

Lord HARLECH

I regret that the Government cannot see their way to go a little further. I agree that the diversity of experience is tremendous. I remember sitting on a Private Bill Committee, immediately after the First World War, on the Thames Conservancy. The two really difficult authorities, who objected to paying, were the County Borough of Oxford and the County Borough of Reading. The other riparian interests were all right, but these two had not the slightest interest in what happened above or below them on the river, and none whatever in agriculture—they had not a single agricultural voter. In one or two places there is a great danger to agricultural interests as well as to river pollution interests and the like. There is much difficulty in heavy industrial areas, such as Lancashire, in getting all interests property represented. Equally, of course, in the case of the Ouse or the Welland area. Surely it would be much better not to have fixed proportions but to allow the utmost latitude to the Minister in the composition of these boards.

Practically every liver area in the country differs from every other area. What you want are the people who will do the job properly. You will find that, if the urban voter in these areas is going to have three-fifths, agricultural and fishery interests will feel that they will not get much of a show. They know they will not get a chance against the weight of money and power in the big cities and towns on the river bank where they have a brief point of view of their own and, possibly, are not represented by an elected person but by an official of one department who looks at the matter purely from the technical point of view of that department. That is the danger in these boards in future. Therefore, the more latitude you can get in this Bill in the composition of these boards, the more I think we shall get what we really want—namely, the proper management of all rivers from every point of view.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

In answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, may I say that an industrial district where there is a very small agricultural area, would obviously be a district where, in all fairness, the industrial or the local authorities would have the largest representation of all. I do not see how one can get over this problem of the small area not receiving sufficient agricultural attention. However, I think we are beginning to see that the urban districts are becoming more rural-minded. In fact, the food problem which is before us now will have, and I think is already having, a large effect on the question. The shortage of food in this country is making townsmen realize the importance of agriculture. River boards will not be devoted to one single interest and I do urge that the local authorities should, in fairness, have their representation. But the biggest point, I think, is this: one must admit that, by and large, over England and Wales, the local authorities are the big contributors.

They also have experience of many other local interests, and I think that they ought to have the major representation on the boards. I personally think that, if they did not get that, we should find it very difficult to operate the scheme and to make river boards work well. I have great hopes that these river boards will not become purely representative of sectional interests but will consider the problem as a national problem and will operate efficiently from that point of view.

Viscount SWINTON

I should have thought that the last words used by the Minister were the best argument for supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has proposed. If you tie yourself down, then you tend to make it a sectional interest, whereas, if you take a wide latitude, then people will be chosen, partly because of their financial responsibility and partly because they are the best people for the job. Moreover, you have a latitude to meet what has already been mentioned in debate—namely, the widely differing interests of, for example, one case where 80 per cent. comes from a drainage hoard or another case where next to nothing comes from a drainage board. I should have thought that all those arguments were in favour of the wide latitude for which the Minister was pleading at the beginning of his Bill. As I understand the Amendment moved by my noble friend, you can always go to the two-thirds if you think it right to go to the two-thirds, the maximum which he himself wants for his local authorities. If, on consideration, he thought that on every board in the country the local authority should have two-thirds, he should have the right to make it two-thirds. If that were his view, then he ought to say two-thirds and nothing else. If there is to be a latitude, then I think that latitude downwards would be a wise course for him to accept.

Everybody wants this plan to work, but the Minister himself does not know how the boards are going to be constituted. I can quite understand that, for he has told us so. He does not know until he has had consultation with all the different interests concerned, and I am very glad that he is going to provide in the Bill that he shall consult with them. When all that is said and done, he produces his scheme and everybody has a chance of appealing against it. Then it comes here for either an affirmative or a negative Resolution and either House of Parliament can reject it. We do not want to have to reject it. When it comes here we cannot amend it; that is always the difficulty in these instruments. I see no other way out of delegated legislation. Even when the Minister himself feels that he has made a mistake, the only thing he can do is to withdraw the whole of the order and come back with a new one. A wide latitude affords the best way of avoiding such a happening and the best way of avoiding a whole mass of appeals, probably of people appearing by counsel in an atmosphere of opposition where you get exactly that sectional conflict which the Minister wants to avoid. I would say that you would have far fewer appeals against a final order, whether everybody has the right to appeal or the order comes before either House of Parliament, if you leave to yourself the greatest possible latitude in the way to construct the boards.

Earl DE LA WARR

I would appeal to the noble Lord and to the Leader of the House to promise us reconsideration on this point. As I have said already and as the noble Viscount who has just sat down has said, all we are asking for is greater discretion to the Minister so that in cases, possibly only a very few cases, where the drainage authorities are, in fact, the major interested bodies, then it will be possible for the Minister with the use of his discretion to give them a wider representation. That is not asking a great deal.

Lord CALVERLEY

I would like to ask the noble Lord whether the remark let fall by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that members appointed to the board might be officials—

Lord HARLECH

I understood that that was the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

Lord CALVERLEY

I thought I heard you say that.

Lord HARLECH

I took it up from the speech made before.

Lord CALVERLEY

I took particular notice of the point to which the noble Lord was referring. On the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board they are all public representatives who serve. The only officials we have at present are the officials of the catchment board itself and, while we are by no means experts, we have taken an interest in our work. I should like to have an assurance from my noble friend that they are not going to have boards of officials but representatives who have been elected by the people and, even if they are not experts in the best sense of the term, are going to learn the job. If the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board are going on, they are going to take a great interest in their work.

Lord SALTOUN

I see in subsection (6) that county councils and county boroughs shall not appoint any officer or servant of the council or of any other local authority. So, the question is entirely out of order.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

They will not be officials.

Lord CALVERLEY

That is all I want to know.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

On the general issue, I would be willing to consider the question and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Minister, but I cannot offer any hope that he will accept the Amendment. We will consider it between now and Report stage, but I cannot give any commitment that we will be able to accept the Amendment. Perhaps that will satisfy the noble Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.40 p.m.

Earl DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2) (c) (i), to leave out "after consultation with" and insert "from a panel nominated in such manner as may be specified in the order, by." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment that I can move quite briefly, because these people are to be nominated and I think it is recognized that that is to be so. There is some feeling on the part of the drainage boards and the fishery industries, however, that they are now to have remarkably little say in regard to those who are nominated to look after their interests. Therefore, I put down this Amendment, and also the following Amendment, to ensure that both the drainage and the fishery representatives will be appointed from panels nominated, say, "in such manner as may be specified in the order." By those words I hope will be understood panels of the drainage boards and fishery authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("appointed") to ("the") and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

This, is an Amendment with which I confess we have great sympathy and, in all fairness, I may say that we would like to see the fishery interests and possibly the drainage interests choosing their own representatives. After all, it is a good principle of democracy, and I do not see why one should say that it does not apply here, as anywhere else. But we come up against a great difficulty here. Although we sympathize with the principle of this Amendment, it has been found exceedingly difficult on examination to carry it out. Both fisheries and drainage are very much diffused and unorganized. It might be argued (though it has not been done by the noble Earl) that there is a parallel between the agricultural and the county executive committees, in which the Central Landowners' Association, the Workers' Union and the Farmers' Union submit a panel of names to the Minister out of which he chooses representatives to serve on the committee; but in this particular case there is not the equivalent organization. In fisheries you find every sort of association. You get the fishermen who own nets at the river mouth, you get the anglers, in whom the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is interested and you get the owners of the river banks, and people who have salmon and trout fishing. You also get this very difficult situation, that a lot of the fishermen come from outside the area concerned. Although some of them, it is true, are organized in associations and pay licences and fees, they are not comparable with a central organization like the Farmers' Union or the workers' unions and the equivalent organizations which may exist in the river board areas.

When you come to drainage it is much the same. Although there is a central organization of drainage authorities in an area like the Great Ouse, there are innumerable other drainage authorities without any sort of central organization to knit them together. So, unfortunately, there is no parallel between associations like the Farmers' Union or the Central Landowners' Association and the fishery interests or drainage authorities. We have tried for a long time to think of some way in which members could be nominated, but the difficulties which we encountered were so big that to find a statutory body that would have the exclusive right of representing the interests in the manner suggested was almost impossible. However, I would like to give this assurance, that in every case the Minister will consult bodies concerned with fisheries and drainage. He will always take them into his confidence, and use their knowledge to the greatest possible extent. That is a simple course to follow in administration, but it is difficult to put it into a Bill. For those reasons, and having regard to the fact that we have every sympathy with the intention of the Amendment, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

Earl DE LA WARR

I think the Minister has dealt with this matter very fairly, and it is difficult not to appreciate the force of the case that he has put up.

I do hope, however, that we may do something to introduce this principle and I hope some discussion will emerge from the next few Amendments. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (2) (c) (ii), to leave out "to represent fishery interests in the river board area" and insert: , after consultation with representatives of the holders of licences to fish within the river board area issued under any of the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, and representatives of persons possessing within the river board area either of the qualifications mentioned in Section 50 of that Act, to represent those interests in the river board area; and the order shall provide where practicable for a scheme, which may be varied by the Minister in accordance with the terms thereof, to be made by the Minister as to the manner in which those interests may nominate a panel of persons from whom members of a river board shall be appointed under this sub-paragraph.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down soon after the Second Reading of the Bill. Since then, there has been a consultation at the Ministry which my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon was good enough to attend, when certain negotiations took place. I think the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, was also present. As a result of those negotiations it may be possible to reach some agreement between the angling interests of the country and my noble friend and his Minister either on this Amendment, which is at the top of page 2, or the Amendment which follows, at page 2, line 30—or possibly even on the Amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire. I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment in favour of either that of Lord Saltoun or the Duke of Devonshire, if I may have some promise of satisfaction from my noble friend. Briefly the case is this—and any of these three Amendments would meet it.

There are far more organized fishermen than the noble Earl has admitted in his remarks, and there are few areas in which there are not angling associations. If the rivers were absolutely hopeless there would be no fishermen there, although there will probably be people who would like to be fishermen and who would like to go to other areas. So you will certainly get organized clubs; and very vocal and well organized they are too! They are now having taken away from them the right to nominate their representatives—a right they had before. That is their grievance. They are the people clearly defined in the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act. It is all very well for my noble friend to say that of course these people will be consulted, and that he would not think of acting without them. He may go to a higher position, or he may be transferred to some other great position in the Government, and his words in Hansard will be a pure defence to his successor who perhaps may not be quite so sympathetic to angling interests. The words now in the Bill, that the Ministers concerned shall appoint persons "to represent fishery interests," are an arbitrary power which is distasteful to the people concerned.

I know my noble friend and I trust him to act in the very best interests of this worthy body of men, but the anglers as a whole, outside his own area, do not know him. To them he is a distant member of the Government; and so is the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. He is known in certain parts of the country, but anglers as a whole do not know him. They are suspicious of this power to appoint persons—in spite of the comforting words of the noble Earl—and they would much rather have words in the Bill. I have had this from all the main angling associations of the country, and so, I know, have other noble Lords present here. We have had very strong representations on this matter. They prefer defined words in the Bill, either such as I have suggested in the Amendment upon which I am now speaking or the words of the Amendments which stand in the names of the two noble Peers to whom I have referred. For the sake of hearing the views of others of your Lordships, in the hope of receiving support, and in order to hear also what I trust will be a helpful reply from my noble friend, the Earl of Huntingdon, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 29, leave out ("to represent fishery interests in the river board area") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

I think it may suit the convenience of the Committee if I say now a few words which I was proposing to say on the next Amendment. Of the three Amendments relating to this matter, I think I prefer the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend, Lord Strabolgi, and that which is in the name of my noble friend, Lord Saltoun, to my own, and I would be glad to support either of those Amendments. I drafted my own Amendment in the form I did, because I thought that on the whole it was easier for the Government to accept such an Amendment than one defining the duties more precisely, as I think is the case with the other two Amendments. I want to impress upon the Committee that the anglers of the country feel very strongly with regard to the matter with which these Amendments deal. They feel that they are being deprived of a right which they have to-day. They feel that they will go on paying for licences and get less for them. They have a strong sense of grievance that whereas other people will have a defined right of being consulted, they, the anglers, will lose the right which they have to-day.

I think the noble Lord who has just spoken has put the case very lucidly and fairly. I realize the difficulties that lie in the way of accepting any precise form of words. The words of my Amendment do not impose any precise duty, though, as I say, they are less satisfactory to me than are the words of either the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. But I think my Amendment does go some way towards satisfying angling interests which now feel such a strong sense of grievance. I speak now because the noble Earl may perhaps find it possible to indicate to us his attitude towards these Amendments, and if he can give any satisfactory assurance I shall certainly be happy not to move my Amendment.

Lord SALTOUN

I would like to support my noble friends, the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Strabolgi, in what they have said, and I have something to urge in addition. My noble friend the Earl of Radnor said in the Second Reading debate that the fishermen of the country, in this connexion, are our best watchdogs. If you get enough fishermen helping in this work, you will be all right. If you can fill the boards with fishermen you will get freedom from pollution within a measurable period quite easily. Every if you have only one accredited fisherman on a board, he, it may well be, will prove a tremendous influence for good and do a great deal towards achieving the object which we all have at heart. Fishermen know very well indeed when and where there is pollution. You may go to a local government representative and say that certain water is polluted, and he will probably reply: "Not a bit of it; we have the finest sewage works in the world." And that is about all you will get out of him. But the fishermen know better. The noble Earl, I know, sympathizes with us in this, and he has every excuse for showing that sympathy. Under this Bill as it now stands people will be deprived of a right which they already enjoy. The noble Earl cannot say that in this matter there is no machinery. There is machinery already set up, and there is no person in the country who would criticize or make any hostile comment upon the Government for giving way on this point. It is universally realized that no one could justly criticize. I suggest that this is clearly going to be a very important factor in the success of this Bill, and I beg the noble Earl to accept one of these three Amendments or to accept something in substitution. I think he will agree that we have made out a good case.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I must confess to being very much impressed, first by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who has made out an exceedingly clear and powerful case, and then by the fairness and moderation which have been shown by the noble Duke and Lord Saltoun. In view of this almost, if not quite, unanswerable case, or at any rate these very strong arguments, I would like to do something to meet the case which has been put forward. The Government, I suggest, would be prepared to accept the noble Duke of Devonshire's Amendment subject to some re-drafting.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl and I adopt his suggestion with great gratitude.

Lord STRABOLGI

In view of what has been said by the noble Earl, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and I shall be glad to see on the Report stage whether the altered Amendment will prove acceptable.

Earl DE LA WARR

While the noble Lords who are concerned with the interests of fishermen are no doubt rightly pleased that they have got this concession, I would like here to make some mention of another interest. I gather that, possibly as a result of their eloquent arguments, fishery interests are now assured of getting some representation. I would like to ask that we do not forget the drainage boards. I should wish, if I may, to enter a caveat to the effect that we ought to look at this matter also from the point of view of the drainage interests.

Lord STRABOLGI

Does the noble Earl propose to accept the noble Duke's Amendment right away, with some small alteration?

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

No, there will be an alteration extending to some two or three words.

Lord STRABOLGI

We shall see the draft of the proposed Amendment later on?

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

Certainly. We accept in principle the noble Duke's Amendment, but we should like to have consultation and re-drafting.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

This is a very small Amendment the actual point of which is to make clear in the Bill that joint representation shall be provided for by order, and not by the Minister administratively. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 42, leave out ("direct") and insert ("provide in the order").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord SALTOUN moved to add the following paragraph at the end of subsection (6): (b) Any order establishing a river board shall make provision as to the manner in which fishery interests may at any time nominate a panel of persons from whom members of the board other than first members shall be appointed to represent those interests.

The noble Lord said: In view of what has passed I do not know what will be the noble Earl's attitude on this Amendment. I do not propose to urge it at any length. If the noble Earl is going to consult the fishery interests it might not be a bad thing to have it publicly known. I do not wish to press this Amendment; I just move it.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 24, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Saltoun.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I would ask that this Amendment be withdrawn in view of the other one which has been put forward by the noble Duke.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.58 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI moved in subsection (7) to leave out the first "Any" and insert "(a) Any." The noble Lord said: There are three Amendments in my name which, I think, should be taken together in order to get their meaning. The effect of the Amendments would be to give the same right of appeal or opposition to an order as is provided in Part III of the First Schedule. If your Lordships will turn to the First Schedule you will see that on page 30 it is laid down that an order shall be published in the usual way, and there are various provisions for persons who question its validity to have the right of appeal. This, again, is of interest to anglers. They feel it would give them a second chance, so to speak. I am sure your Lordships will agree that if it is right that this opportunity of questioning an order should apply to those covered by Part III of the Schedule, it should apply here as well. My Amendment only brings the whole of the Bill into line with one part of it. I hope my noble friend will see his way to accept this Amendment, which is really more of a drafting Amendment than one altering the substance of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 25, leave out ("Any") and insert ("(a) Any").—(Lord Strabolgi.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

As I understand it, the intention of the noble Lord's Amendment is to make the composition of the river boards subject to objection which can be brought before Parliament. We propose in this Bill that the areas, when defined, shall be subject to Parliamentary debate but that the composition and proportion of the river boards shall be definitely set out in the Bill and shall not be altered. The only question that will reside with the Minister will be the different proportion between drainage and fishery interests. Though appreciating the noble Lord's point that fishery interests may think they are being neglected, I do not think the question should every time be brought before Parliament. It should be left to the discretion of he Minister to give adequate representation to the various interests in one area and another, and it seems reasonable that the Minister responsible for agriculture and fisheries should be able to exercise this responsibility without in every case having the whole matter debated before Parliament. I assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend—and I think it would apply to any Minister—would want to have a strong representation of fishery interests in order to combat (as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, would say) pollution, and in order to keep himself seized of information. There are great bodies of fishermen who would soon make their voices heard if they were not given adequate representation. I suggest that the noble Lord should rely on the Minister's discretion and not press his Amendment further.

Lord STRABOLGI

I am very disappointed at that reply. The fisherman's safeguard so far, if our previous arrangement is carried through, is that persons will be appointed by the right honourable gentleman after consultation with the bodies concerned. But the Minister may be very badly advised in certain areas and many important angling interests—or for that matter, drainage interests—may not be properly and adequately represented. As for the fishery bodies appealing, it is all very well to say that they can make their voices heard, but how can they make their voices heard? They can only do so by questions in Parliament and debates in this House, and the Bill, which will then be an Act, will be pointed to, and the matter will be settled. It is a cause jugè e and there will be no kind of appeal, but under the proposed Amendment there would be, although I admit a cumbersome one. It would be a case of going to a High Court Judge, but if the grievance were considered sufficiently great and the body were sufficiently numerous they would exercise that right, and they should have that safeguard. Otherwise they are entirely dependent on the advice given to the Minister in a very complicated matter covering the whole of the country and on the undoubted good will of the Minister, who, however, might be badly informed on the case. There should be safeguards and I must press the Amendment further.

Lord SALTOUN

I would like to support the noble Lord. I think the composition of the river boards should come before Parliament. I think the words "statutory instrument" in Clause 31 are misleading. I had the impression that this matter would come before Parliament. After all, an instrument is a document which effects something. A notarial instrument is a document which effects something, and it is prepared by a notary. I should have thought that a statutory instrument was a document which had been, at any rate, seen and vetted by Parliament. I would like to raise my voice in defence of the noble Lord's Amendment.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I am very reluctant to resist this Amendment of my noble friend. I am sure he feels strongly about the matter, as, no doubt, do many anglers, but I think it would be a difficult Amendment to accept. If the Amendment were accepted and this provision applied in every case, there would be many appeals and much trouble before Parliament, and I do not think that would be either desirable or particularly helpful to the river boards. If the Minister were misusing his powers, or using them very unwisely, there would be an obvious case for Parliamentary representation; but if in any area the Minister were foolish enough to appoint representatives perhaps only of fishery and not of drainage interests, there would be such a scandal that a flood of questions and debates would follow, and the Minister would be strongly criticized about the use of his powers. There is always the safeguard of Parliament. But having laid down in the Bill the actual composition of the river boards, I would strongly suggest to your Lordships that the minor powers of discretion of the Minister should remain, and this Amendment should not be pressed.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE had given Notice of his intention to move to delete from subsection (7) "in the case of any order defining a river board area." The noble Duke said: I think this Amendment has been, to a large extent, covered. Why should special Parliamentary procedure not apply to orders defining boards as well as orders defining areas? That is very largely the point the noble Lord has been covering. After what the noble Lord has said on the subject, I shall not move the Amendment.

Lord STRABOLGI

I appeal to the noble Duke. His Amendment really makes the issue clear. It would be of tremendous value if the Minister would accept it, because it does give us a chance of applying Parliamentary procedure to the formation of boards, whereas I was seeking, unfortunately without success, to apply to a river board area the procedure of Part III of the First Schedule—the approach to the High Court Judge—and the rather formal proceedings in opposition which are laid down there. I was unsuccessful, in spite of the able support I had from the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. But this Amendment, at any rate, gives to agreed bodies the Parliamentary Prayer method of dealing with the composition of the boards. I was asked by the interests concerned to support this Amendment. We only want the same rights where the appointment of a board is concerned as is given to those affected by the areas.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

I need hardly say that if the noble Earl can see his way to accept the Amendment, I shall be delighted, but in view of what he said on the previous Amendment, I do not feel like pressing it. If he could see his way clear to accept the Amendment I would move it, but as he cannot I shall not do so.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Variation of river board areas and of constitution of river boards.

(3) The Ministers may by order vary the constitution of any river board to such extent as appears to them to be necessary in consequence of any substantial alteration of the areas of local government included wholly or partly in the river board area or any substantial change in the rateable value of the property in any such area of local government, but not so as to depart from the requirements of the last preceding section.

4.12 p.m.

Earl DE LA WARR moved to add the following proviso at the end of subsection (3): Provided that where any functions are transferred to a River Board by order under section 8 of this Act, the Ministers may by order vary the constitution of that Board so as to provide for representation of any interests which appear to them to be concerned in the said functions.

The noble Earl said: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will be able to accept this Amendment. Your Lordships will see that provision in made in Clause 8 for the transfer of the functions of navigation boards to the river boards. In those circumstances, I think we should agree that the Minister should have the right to appoint a representative of navigation and harbour authorities. I can quite see that there may be circumstances even then when the transfer may be considered so negligible that the Minister will not want to exercise his right. However, there is nothing mandatory in this Amendment; it merely extends the discretion of the Minister. I, therefore, briefly ask the noble Earl if he will agree to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I think there is a lot of reason in the noble Earl's Amendment, and it is the sort of thing we would like to consider sympathetically. I presume it would apply only if the contribution were a substantial one?

Earl DE LA WARR

At the discretion of the Minister.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

In view of what seems to be a very reasonable case, and if the noble Earl will agree, the Government would like to have an Amendment put down on the Report stage.

Earl DE LA WARR

In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Functions of river boards.

4.—(1) For the purpose of conferring on river boards the functions of catchment boards and fishery boards and the functions exercisable by local authorities and joint boards and joint committees of local authorities under Section sixty-nine of the Public Health Act, 1875, the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and any enactment relating to river pollution contained in a local Act, the enact- ments and statutory orders referred to in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect, as from the appointed day, in relation to any river board area, subject to the modifications, adaptations and exceptions specified in the said Schedule.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The next Amendment is merely to make quite clear that if the local authority has power under a statutory order in regard to pollution, that power should obviously be transferred to the river board. The Bill itself transfers powers, and pollution powers should, with other powers, be transferred to the river board. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 41, after ("Act") insert ("or statutory order").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.15 p.m.

Lord SALTOUN moved to add to sub-section (1): Provided that the requirements of Part III of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act. 1876, in so far as they relate to the consent of the Minister of Health shall not apply to a river board.

The noble Lord said: This, to my mind, is the most important Amendment to this Bill. I spent a long time studying this Bill to see if I could net get some words inserted which would alter the effect of the original Statute of 1876, but it did not seem that in a Bill of this kind I could alter a Public General Act by a side wind. These words are the best I can find, and they may have some effect. We have to face the fact that the pollution of our streams and rivers has gone on daily under the protection afforded by the Act of 1876. We have before our eyes the example of that Statute, brought in expressly to check pollution, being the great protector of the polluter, and I think we should be very careful in passing this Bill to examine whether we are not now, with the fairest professions on our lips and the fairest hopes in our hearts, raising another bulwark to protect the polluter. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment in the hope that these words may be adopted.

The river boards are obviously going to perform a great and extremely responsible function under this Bill. If they are given authority, I have every hope that it will be efficiently discharged. This Amendment asks that the river boards, which, as the noble Earl has said, are going to exercise authority over vast tracts of country—the whole bed and watershed of the individual rivers—should be given precisely the same powers as are at present enjoyed by the Thames and Lee conservancy authorities. I do not think it is really going very far. Local authorities tell me that the fact that under the present provisions proceedings can be taken against bad cases of pollution only with the authority and sanction of the Minister is one of the greatest difficulties in attacking pollution when it occurs. A public inquiry has to be held and it has to be shown that all reasonable methods have not been adopted to check the pollution.

That is what I am told by local authorities, and it brings me to my point—namely, that it is that provision in the Act of 1876 which has been the real protection of the polluter. Of course, in human experience you can never do anything until you try; trying is the way to learn how to do things. I humbly submit to the Government that these river boards are going to be constituted very largely from representatives of local authorities and people intimately concerned, I hope, in checking pollution and in paying for whatever has to be done. I suggest that the powers I seek for these river boards are not unreasonable, and would give us some real hope that the Bill might prove effective in checking the pollution. That pollution is increasing even while I am speaking; it is continually getting worse and worse. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 45, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Saltoun.)

Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE

I should like to support my noble friend, Lord Saltoun. I agree with him that a large question of principle is raised in this proposal to exempt the workings of the Act of 1876. As I understand it, at the present time no local authorities can institute proceedings except with the permission of the Minister of Health. Naturally, that makes the local authorities reluctant to go forward, particularly as I understand that in the nine years preceding the war there were twenty-eight applications by local authorities only fourteen of which were granted by the Minister of Health. The Minister, I understand, takes the view that only in glaring cases of pollution should permission be given to prosecute. It seems to me that that is entirely wrong. It should not be for the Ministry officials, the Minister, or his executives to say whether a prosecution is justified or not. That is for the courts to say in due course in giving the verdict as regards the particular prosecution. That seems to be the point, and it is taking away a large part of the purpose of the Bill if this provision remains. I think my noble friend's Amendment should be accepted both on the narrow ground of fulfilling the purpose of the Bill and also on the broader ground that access to the Courts should be free to any aggrieved person.

Lord GLENCONNER

I hope that I may enjoy the indulgence which is usually extended to speakers on the first occasion they speak in your Lordships' House. If I may, I would like to make one or two observations on the Amendment which the noble Lord has proposed. What I have to say can be said in a very few words. No one will dispute that every reasonable step must be taken to mitigate the very evil consequences of river pollution, but there is a view that this particular Amendment would not necessarily advance matters in the right direction. I think it is felt that it would take a long time, perhaps years, before the new river boards could equip themselves with the necessary expert, scientific and technical staff and knowledge with which to examine what are generally technical questions and for which, in some cases, no solution has yet been found. It is feared that if these river boards were to be granted these powers and were to exercise them before they were equipped with the necessary expert staff, grave injury might be done to the industrial welfare of the country. I do not say the industrial interests, but the industrial welfare of the country. Further, those who have advocated this particular Amendment, as I understand it, do not seem to have taken fully into account the fact—although mention has been made of it—that in the large proportion of cases referred to the Minister a satisfactory settlement has been reached after investigation has been made on the spot by the Minister's technical staff and experts.

One other point is that I understand this Bill is concerned principally with the reorganization of the machinery of administration and is not intended to amend the existing law governing pollution. I also understand that the review of this general law is now under consideration by a sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee and that the particular question that we are now discussing—namely, that of consent being obtained from the Minister before prosecutions can be instituted—will be reviewed by that subcommittee. I therefore submit that at this stage it would perhaps be merely to anticipate the recommendations which they will make in due course, and to which I feel sure full weight will be given when they are presented. For those reasons I beg to suggest that the noble Earl should not see fit to accept the Amendment.

The Earl of PERTH

I feel sure that it would be your Lordships' wish for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, on his maiden speech in this House and to express the wish that we shall listen to him very often. Having said that, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me—this being obviously a non-party measure—if I differ from the views he has expressed. On the other hand, I want to support the Amendment with all the power I have. I differ from the noble Lord who has just spoken on two grounds. In the first place, it would seem to me that at one moment he went very nearly to a point of allowing pollution. He said that if you took action against pollution it might interfere with the industry of the country. I do not think he really meant to go so far as that, but that was the impression he made on my mind.

The second point he made was that arrangements had often been made between firms which had been accused of pollution so that pollution either diminished or ceased. The point really in my mind is this. Our rivers are being polluted at a very great pace. The noble Earl in the debate on the Second Reading said that the Government were fully aware of what was happening and were going to take it in hand. If I may say so, one of the best methods of stopping pollution at an early date is to give to the river boards the power to prosecute without having to appeal to the Ministry of Health. Now why is that? First of all, an appeal to the Ministry of Health must take a certain time and demand a public inquiry. If I am polluting a river I am going to say: "Well, I can go on because I know that no prosecution can take place for a very long time and I shall be able to resist it." I think that is a very strong point. The second point is that we know the Thames Conservancy Board have been allowed to prosecute direct. That fact has had a most extraordinary effect in checking pollution in the Thames.

The third and last point I would like to make is that if pollution starts, it starts quite suddenly by effluent or sewage coming in at a given moment. As I said, action by applying to the Ministry of Health will take a considerable period, but the effect of the pollution—even if it has gone on for only three weeks or a month—may take years to remedy. Therefore, you should surely give the river boards that single extra power to prosecute without having to make an appeal to the Ministry of Health. I beg to support the Amendment.

Lord STRABOLGI

I would also like very respectfully to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, on his admirable and most interesting speech, and I am sure we all agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken that he is a great acquisition to your Lordships' debating powers. I must also disagree with the remarks which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, and if I may I would very briefly state the case against him. He says that these new river boards will have to learn their work. They will not toe composed of inexperienced members by any means. They will be drawn from the existing boards and will be very formidable bodies. They will include a direct representative of my noble friend and the Minister of Health. They will have a great representation of the two Ministries concerned. They will not be fly-by-night bodies, but will be administering very large funds and looking after very large areas. The idea that they will go in for flimsy prosecutions can, I am sure, be put right out of the picture altogether.

Secondly, the Ministers concerned, I suggest to your Lordships, have double powers under Clause 18. That is the safeguard for the Minister of Health. The case has been most admirably put by other noble Lords, particularly if I may say so, by the mover of the Amendment. He quoted the example of the Thames and Lee Conservancy Boards, and these were referred to also by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. This obligation on the Minister of Health apparently has worked very well in their case. I was hoping, when this legislation was introduced, that as a result of a promise made by the spokesman of the Coalition Government on this subject (when the noble Earl, Lord Munster, spoke on the evils of pollution and resisted a Motion by myself to make the Minister of Health responsible for the purity of water supplied as well as for its provision) direct responsibility would be put on the Minister of Health in this present legislation to see to the purity of these waters. But that has not been followed through. We have not been given a great reform in administration. The next best thing we can do is to free these new river boards from this hampering obligation of the Act of 1876, which has been described so vividly by several noble Lords this afternoon.

I do very strongly urge my noble friend to accept this Amendment, or something equally applicable. I believe it would be possible as an alternative to amend the Third Schedule, paragraph 15, page 35, lines 35 to 38 in order to give much the same effect. But that is a drafting matter. Let us have the principle and I am sure we can find necessary words. I very strongly support the Amendment.

Lord ROCHESTER

Speaking as one who has had some years' experience of pollution of the Thames, I must say that time is the essence of the matter. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, everything turns upon preventing pollution before it can do too much harm—and much harm could he done before all that machinery is put in motion. Therefore I would urge the noble Earl to accept this Amendment and I very gladly support the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I have the very happy duty of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, on the excellent maiden speech he made, which showed not only eloquence but great knowledge of the subject and clarity of exposition. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that he should (be a great acquisition to our debates. I am also doubly happy in that the noble Lord made my speech for me—an exceedingly useful and agreeable experience!

I would like to say that His Majesty's Government have great sympathy with the intention implied in Lord Saltoun's speech of combating pollution, a point upon which we are all agreed. I am sure that no one could feel more strongly on the subject than the Minister of Agriculture. One realizes that this is a national problem that needs to be tackled in a national way. I absolutely agree therefore with noble Lords. I would, however, suggest one or two points. When it is suggested that the powers enjoyed by, for instance, the Lee Catchment Board should be given to other rivers, that presents a difficult problem. The River Lee generally presents a very different problem from the Thames. It is not so easy as all that to transfer powers. We should run into considerable difficulties and unexpected snags.

But my big point is not whether the method of controlling pollution is effective but that this Amendment is against the general principles of the Bill. We are trying in this Bill to set up river boards and to transfer existing powers as they are, and not to give new powers; because as has been pointed out clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, the whole matter is at this moment being considered by the sub-committee of the Central Water Advisory Committee. Surely the noble Lord could not press this matter while the subject is actually being considered by the Committee, evidence being taken, and a report being prepared. We cannot disregard all that. For these reasons I would suggest that this is a subject for the next Bill and not for this, and that we should await the report of the sub-committee to which I have referred.

Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE

Could the noble Earl give us any indication as to when legislation might be introduced? If it is a long time ahead much damage may be done. Can he say when the Committee are likely to report and whether the Government have any intention of introducing legislation soon afterwards?

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I cannot give any indication of that kind, but naturally we hope it will be very soon. Legislation would have to depend on the Committee's report. But I can assure the noble Lord that we have this problem very much at heart and shall try to find some efficient cure at the earliest possible moment.

The Earl of PERTH

The noble Earl talks as if these were new powers. But they are already conferred on the Thames Conservancy Board, as he admits. It is not, therefore, a matter of conferring new powers. It is a matter of extending powers already existing. I feel very strongly on this matter. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will not withdraw his Amendment but will press it to a Division.

Earl DE LA WARR

The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has a very winning way of always agreeing with an Amendment before he asks one to withdraw it. He has done so to-day but I hope the noble Lord will think twice before he does withdraw the Amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, there is nothing new here in the way of powers. The greatest local authority in this country already possesses this power. I should like to suggest to the noble Earl, in view of the extreme strength of feeling in the Committee on the subject, which has been expressed in the discussion of this Amendment, that it would be a good thing both for the passage of the Bill and for its future happy working if he would undertake to reconsider this matter before Report. It seems to me that this might be a reasonable alternative.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

In view of the extremely strong feeling of your Lordships on the subject and also of the fact that the Government are so much in sympathy with the principle, I should be quite prepared to consider this between now and the Report stage and to consult my right honourable friend, but I cannot hold out any definite hopes that he will alter his intentions.

Earl DE LA WARR

Nor we ours of dividing!

Lord SALTOUN

I should like to thank the noble Earl and at the same time to join in the tribute paid to the noble Lord, Lord Glenconner, on his first speech. One usually accepts a maiden speech but this was so closely argued that I should like to pay him the compliment of challenging the points he made. These local authorities are going to have power to spend money, and if they impose taxes on their constituents they are going to get into trouble. As the Bill has been framed so that local authorities with local money are to administer this, it cannot be wrong to give the river boards to whom power is entrusted power to carry out their functions. Then there is another point. Noble Lords have talked about pollution. We are thinking of persistent, wicked and continuing pollution; but pollution is very often intermittent. A man empties his refuse into a running stream; that is done to-day; the fish are killed. But three days later, if somebody comes down from the Ministry, the evil has gone. It is very important to give the local people on the spot power to strike. Before withdrawing my Amendment by leave of the House (for I cannot do it without leave of the House) I would add that consideration for the noble Earl's attention.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 [Extension of river board areas for purposes of certain junctions]:

The Earl of HUNTINGDON moved to add to the clause: (2) Any question arising under the preceding subsection as to the extent of the tidal waters or parts of the sea included in any river board area for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection shall be determined by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

The noble Earl said: This is a very small point, concerning the occasion where possibly areas of river boards overlap in an estuary. This gives the Minister power of decision as to where their functions, end. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Thames and Lee catchment areas and London.

(5) Where a new river board area is defined so as to consist of or include the whole or any part of the areas originally excluded from Section one of this Act, or a river board area is altered by the inclusion therein of any part of the said areas, Section four of this Act shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified by order of the Ministers, and the order may in particular provide—

(b) for the making of such modifications or adaptations of, or exceptions from, or the repeal of such provisions of, any local Act or statutory order as the Ministers consider necessary or expedient in consequence of that transfer.

443 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (5): Provided that in the event of the transfer to the board of any functions of the Port of London Authority relating to land drainage, fisheries or river pollution the order shall provide for the expenses of the board, so far as they are not defrayed out of revenues of the board, to be met out of the revenues of that Authority instead of under Section ten of this Act.

The noble Lord said: Until quite recently, an Amendment of this kind would have been moved in this House by my noble friend Lord Latham, but on this occasion I have been asked to put the matter before your Lordships' House, and I will do so in as few words as possible. First of all, under the first clause, the Thames and Lee Catchment Areas are omitted from the provisions of the Bill. Secondly, under Clause 7, the Minister will be given power at some future date to include those areas or any other area in the Bill. Under Clause 10, power is given to the river boards to introduce precepts to local authorities to raise money.

In so far as the Lee Catchment Area are concerned, it is not anticipated that this will create a heavier burden for the County of London, but the incorporation of the Thames Catchment Area would be another matter altogether. From Teddington to the sea, the duty at present lies with the Port of London Authority, and all expenses incurred in this connexion are met by that Authority out of their tolls, dues, and other revenues. The gross expenditure annually is a little over £250,000. Under the Bill, it would appear that the Ministers, if so disposed, could make an order for the transfer of the Conservancy duties from the Port of London Authority to a newly formed river board. If this were done, the expenditure of the board would fall to be met by the local authorities through whose areas the river runs. It is evident that the lion's share would fall on the County of London. It is suggested, therefore, in view of the present incidence of the precepts, that power should be given in this measure to omit from financial responsibility the London County Council and its area, should a river board be established for the Thames, and that the expenditure incurred should be levied on the Port of London Authority from their tolls and not on the general body of ratepayers. I have great pleasure in submitting this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord ROCHESTER

I very much hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. Anything more unreasonable I think it would be difficult to imagine. What is the position? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will forgive me when I say that when he spoke of that £250,000 expenditure by the Port of London Authority he was confusing two issues. It is true that we spend something over £250,000 annually, consequent on the siltation of the river, in keeping it dredged. I admit that it is in some measure due to the sewage effluent which the London County Council pour into the Port of London. After all is said and done, they are the biggest culprits, and now they come and ask whether, in the event of this duty being transferred to the river board, we, the Port of London Authority, should foot the bill. We do not pollute the river. Surely it is fair to ask, as provided by Clause 10 of this Bill which lays down the financial arrangements, that it should revert to those inhabitants who cause the pollution—namely, in this case, the constituents of the London County Council. I cannot believe that the Government will be a party to accepting this Amendment, for the effect of it would be that they would be putting the charge on to the Port rates, on to the cost of the export and import of goods, including food, in the Port of London. I do not think it is necessary to argue the case further but, in anticipation, I should like to support the Government in resisting this Amendment.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

It looks to me rather a controversial Amendment. It is an extremely complicated subject and, in view of the arguments that have gone before, possibly the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would like to withdraw his Amendment on condition that, if he likes, I will look at it between now and Report stage. The issues involved are very big, and I should like more time to study them before we commit ourselves. I would suggest, on that undertaking, that the noble Lord might like to withdraw his Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

If the noble Earl, as I understand him, is going to give some attention to this matter between now and Report stage, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8: [Transfer of navigation functions]:

On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill:

Lord ADDINGTON

I have one observation to make on this clause. Apparently, it empowers the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture by order, to provide for the transfer to a river board of any functions exercisable in the river board area by any navigation authority, conservancy authority or harbour authority. It therefore goes much further in provision for the transfer of navigation functions than Section 40 of the Land Drainage Act. That is the Act which apparently introduced it, and we do not want to disturb or widen it at the present moment. I therefore suggest for the consideration of the noble Earl that any such transfers should be made by agreement only.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I must apologize to the noble Lord. It is not an Amendment he is speaking of?

Lord ADDINGTON

No. 1t is only a suggestion made on the clause. I do not want an answer now.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

We shall be pleased to look at that. I would like rather more notice to look into what is really a complicated question.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9:

Conservation of water resources and provision of information.

9.—(1) It shall be the duty of every river board, in exercising the functions conferred on or transferred to them by or under this Act, to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of their area.

(7) A river board may give directions requiring any person who in their opinion is abstracting water from any river, stream or inland water in the river board area, otherwise than for his own domestic purposes, or is discharging effluents into any such river, stream or inland water, to give such information as to the abstraction or discharge, at such times and in such form, as may be specified in the directions:

Provided that any person to whom such directions are given may if he considers that the directions are unreasonable or unduly onerous, make representations to the Minister of Health with respect thereto and the Minister may thereupon, if he thinks fit, require the river board to revoke or modify the said directions, and the river board shall comply with the Minister's requirement.

Lord SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), after "conserve" to insert "both as to quantity and as to quality."

The noble Lord said: I feel like apologizing to the Committee for intervening so frequently to-day, but, I am sorry to say, a number of my colleagues who were to co-operate with me in these matters have rather let me down. However, I will do my best not to bore the Committee unduly. This Amendment is to subsection (1), which says: It shall be the duty of every river board, in exercising the functions conferred on or transferred to them by or under this Act, to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of their area. When we look through the Bill to find what further directions are to be given to the new water boards on the subject of conservation we get very little help indeed. This Amendment has been tabled in order to elicit, if possible, some guidance from the Minister for the future river boards of the country. First of all, what is the water to be conserved for? Is it to be for traffic conditions? Is it to be for fishing? Is it to be for irrigation? Is it to be for industrial purposes, or for drinking water? I am sure many authorities in this country will be very happy if the noble Earl can give us some enlightenment on this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 3, after ("conserve") insert ("(both as to quantity and as to quality)"). — (Lord Shepherd.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

It is rather difficult for me to give the full information which the noble Lord desires. It would mean defining the whole water policy, which hardly comes within the scope of this Bill. But I should like to make this point—that in fact "quality" is automatically implied in "quantity." When you say you wish to conserve water, that does not mean dirty water; it definitely means usable, pure, water. That is the usual understanding. Under this Bill, it is perfectly true to say, there are no powers in relation to large sums of money for building reservoirs, but there will have to be consideration of the water policy and further Bills in regard to pollution and other, questions. I do not think this Bill, however, deals with that subject and, in view of that, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

Very humbly!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (7): For the purposes of this subsection the expression 'domestic purposes' means drinking, washing, cooking and sanitary purposes. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also put down for the purpose of eliciting some information. The Amendment has been slightly altered since it left me. When I sent it out it read as follows: For the purposes of this subsection the expression 'domestic purposes' means"— then it left a blank; and on the line further down there was a bracket with inverted commas. We were anxious to obtain a definition from the Government as to the meaning of the term "water for domestic purposes." It was suggested to us at the Table when the Amendment was submitted that it would not be wise to table an Amendment in that way and therefore, by agreement, the following words were included: "drinking, washing, cooking and sanitary purposes." We would like the noble Earl to look at this matter a little further, because there are other purposes that might be brought within the term "domestic purposes." For instance, in many districts there is the watering of cattle. There may be farms that do not abut on to the river and the cattle thereon need to have water supplies. If, therefore, the Government could see their way to accept the Amendment in its present form, subject to looking at it further in order to develop the definition, we should be greatly obliged.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord ADDINGTON

I also would urge the Government to look at this Amendment. The phrase "domestic purposes" has caused a certain amount of litigation and a great deal of difficulty in the past. I do not know whether the words the noble Lord has indicated will be quite complete, but I think the matter ought to be considered. I think also that the question of who is to have the deciding voice in whether or not water is used for domestic use ought to be looked into.

Earl DE LA WARR

If we are to go into the rather difficult task of defining these words I trust that the noble Earl will bear in mind the vital importance of water as applied to agriculture, where it is used for every kind of purpose. It might be rather difficult if we started a detailed attempt at discussion upon it, but I ask him not to leave out some of the purposes. That would be my only fear.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I agree that the Amendment is too restrictive. It is unwise to tie down—

Lord SHEPHERD

If I may interrupt, this definition was included, for the first time in any Act of Parliament, in the Water Act of 1945. That is the reason why these words were chosen.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I appreciate that, but I still think they are rather dangerously restrictive, and we would prefer, if the matter has to be tackled at all, to consider altering the subsection in order that we can make the provision apply to users of very substantial amounts of water rather than by defining it in this way. I do not know whether the noble Lord would agree now of will withdraw his Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

I will withdraw the Amendment.

Earl DE LA WARR

Then the whole matter will be looked at between now and Report?

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

4.59 p.m.

Clause 10:

Financial provisions.

(3) The aggregate amount for which a precept may be issued under the last preceding subsection 1n any one financial year to the council of any county or county borough shall not, except with the consent of the majority of those members of the river board who are appointed by or represent councils of counties and county boroughs, exceed the estimated amount which would be produced by a rate of fourpence in the pound levied on that part of the county or county borough which is within the river board area:

Provided that, where a river board have borrowed or are about to borrow any money under this Act, this subsection shall, if a majority of the said members so resolve, have effect during the currency of the loan as if the said sum of fourpence were increased by such amount as is specified in the resolution.'

(6) Where a river board hold any funds, or any interest in any funds, created under any local Act or statutory order for fishery purposes, those funds or that interest shall only bo used for the purposes for which they or it could have been used if this Act had not been passed, but save as aforesaid all revenues of a river board shall be available for defraying the expenses of the board generally.

Lord SHEPHERD moved, in the proviso to subsection (3), to substitute for the word "resolve" the word "agree." The noble Lord said: This raises the rather difficult matter of voting at meetings of the river board, especially in view of the difficulties that now exist in catchment boards. Subsection (3) of this clause, like the Drainage Act, 1930, provides that where there is to be a levy of fourpence per year, that levy may be voted, or rather borrowed by consent, but that if a water board require to raise money by loan which would run a number of years, then a majority of the representatives from county councils and county boroughs must be in favour of the change. Considerable difficulties do exist over wide areas in getting full attendance at all meetings, and it is felt to be a little unreasonable that all persons who desire to vote or give consent should necessarily have to be in attendance at a meeting. It may well be that conditions may be such as entirely to prevent their attendance. Indeed there have been cases in connexion with a catchment board meeting where business has had to be delayed as the requisite number of persons were not present to give their votes. The Amendment which has been put down in my name provides for other forms of doing this; first by changing certain words in the proviso to subsection (3), and then by giving a system of voting that seems to me to meet the case. I beg to move

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 24, leave out ("resolve") and insert ("agree").—(Lord Shepherd.)

Lord ADDINGTON

I understand that there are three Amendments in the name of the noble Lord and I should like to say a word or two about them. Whilst I agree with the first half of the proviso, it does seem to some of us who are closely concerned with the work of local authorities that it may be very undesirable that people who do not attend the meetings and who have not heard the discussions should have their consent obtained, it may be, by the clerk to a board, writing round for it beforehand. Possibly in writing for that consent the clerk may not put the full case. This is a very important matter, and it is urged in this connexion that it is very undesirable to have consent given except at the meeting when full discussions take place.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

This is a difficult and controversial point and, after a great deal of study, my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion that perhaps the best compromise would be that in the event of the precept exceeding fourpence in the pound, voting could be effected in writing. The reason for this, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said, is that in these days people are exceedingly busy, and these river boards will cover very large areas of country. Therefore, owing to the distances to be covered, it may be difficult for some people to arrive at meetings in time. It is thought that writing should be accepted by the board in such a case. But when we come to the question of loans which will bind not only members of the board but their successors also, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington that it would be wrong to allow decisions to be taken by means of votes in writing. People who decide these far-reaching and important matters ought clearly to be present at the meetings to listen to the arguments. I suggest that that would be the fairest arrangement. So far as we can make it, the first is already provided for, because the powers of the catchment boards are transferred by the Bill to the new river boards, and already it is the regular custom of the catchment boards to write round and get votes by letter from various people. I understand, from counsel's opinion, that this is in order. Therefore I do not think an Amendment is needed to carry this out.

Lord SHEPHERD

In view of what the noble Earl has said, I shall be very happy to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord STRABOLGI had given notice of two Amendments in subsection (6)—namely, after "funds" where that word first occurs to insert "raised"; and to leave out "created under any local Act or statutory order." The noble Lord said: These two Amendments at line 1 and line 2 on page 11 should be read together. The purpose of them is to make sure that funds that have been raised from, for example, anglers' licences, for the purpose of improving fisheries and so on, shall not be devoted to other purposes. It is suggested that as the subsection stands the wording is not wide enough and it is only restricted to special capital funds. These other funds to which I refer should be included, I submit, by altering the subsection 1n the way I propose. I understand that in May, 1945, considerable discussions took place with regard to the drafting of this Bill. That was when the preparation of this particular measure was begun. The Minister of Agriculture of the time assured the National Federation of Anglers—the assurance was given in a memorandum, it was not merely verbal—that funds of fishery associations raised through licences would be used only for fishery purposes. I dare say that is the intention; but there is no safeguard at all. I have put these Amendments down at the request of a large number of angling associations, but it is more for the purpose of obtaining a statement from the Government. I shall not necessarily press an Amendment if it is not accepted by my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon. I beg to move,

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 1, after ("funds") insert ("raised").—(Lord Strabolgi.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The intention of the Government in this matter is as follows. There are certain trust funds which have chiefly come from water undertakings and which in the past have compensated fisheries interests and have been allocated to certain fishery problems or fishery construction. We have decided in this Bill that those funds should continue to be used for their original purposes. There is no question of their being detached or transferred. In regard to the revenue from fisheries by the sale of licences and so forth, I think Lord Strabolgi is not pressing a point which is to the advantage of anglers in this matter. If we conceded that all such fishery revenue was to be used only for fishery interests automatically the converse would be pressed—namely, that any other money should not be used for fishery interests. As the funds of the boards themselves will be so much more than any possible fishery revenue, I think that the fishery interests would come off second best.

Apart from that aspect these are big new local authorities we are setting up and as a matter of administration the funds should be pooled. The revenue would be used one year perhaps more for one purpose than another; in another year for some other purpose, in the discretion of the authorities. It was thought best to do it this way so that the funds of the river boards should be used for various purposes and at the various times which seemed most suitable. I beg the noble Lord to think over that and to consider whether it would not, as I suggest, be a disadvantage if fishery interests were tied down to receiving just the benefit of fishery revenue rather than having a part of the whole revenue of the boards, which is our intention.

Lord STRABOLGI

I am much obliged to the noble Earl. There is a great deal in what he said provided that on the boards concerned the angling interests are properly represented. That is what we have been fighting for most of this afternoon and I hope that we have done so with some success. Anyhow we shall see when the Report stage is reached. If the fishery people have proper numbers representing them, people whom they trust, then that will be all right, and we can feel that the funds will be rightly used on behalf of all concerned, farmers, housewives, and so on, including also the poor anglers. While I shall wait in suspense to see what happens when the Report stage is reached I am willing to withdraw my Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl DE LA WARR

The noble Earl has given me to understand that in fact there are no other Acts concerned in this matter than the local Acts, and on the assumption that that is correct information—which I am sure it is—I do not propose to move my Amendment to leave out the word "local" in subsection (6).

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The Amendment in my name to leave out "or statutory order" in subsection (6), is merely to make clear that, with the exception of certain special fishery funds which are in the nature of trust funds, all the revenues of a river board are to be available for the expenses of the river board. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 2, leave out ("or statutory order").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

5.11 p.m.

Clause 11 [Borrowing powers]:

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

My Amendment to this Clause 1s a drafting Amendment in relation to trust funds which may be spent on particular fishery interests. I hope your Lordships will agree to this, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 31, at end insert ("except any such funds as are referred to in subsection (6) of the last preceding section").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Reports and accounts]:

The Earl of HUNTINGDON moved to add to the clause: (5) Copies of reports of a river board under this section and of statements summarising the accounts of a river board shall be furnished to any person on application and on payment of such reasonable sum as the board may determine.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to meet a later Amendment by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, which seemed to us to have great point and force. We could not quite agree to the drafting of it and I hope the noble Duke will agree instead to our Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 42, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

I am very grateful indeed and certainly fall in with this suggestion.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Acquisition and Disposal of Land]:

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

This Amendment is to allow river boards to purchase such land as they need for their immediate requirements without the approval of the Minister. This is parallel to the powers which are enjoyed by local authorities. I beg to move,

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 43, have out "with the approval of the Ministers"—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

This Amendment relates to the same point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, line 45, at end insert: ("Provided that land not immediately required for such a purpose as aforesaid shall not be acquired under this subsection except with the approval of and subject to any conditions imposed by the Ministers.")—The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Lord SHEPHERD moved to insert after Clause 14 the following new clause:

"Dwelling houses for employees.

.—(1) Any river board shall have power to purchase or take on lease dwelling houses and other buildings for persons employed by them and to erect, fit up, maintain and let any such buildings upon any lands for the time being belonging to them and (subject to the terms of the lease) upon any lands for the time being leased to the river board.

(2) Nothing in this section shall empower the board to create or permit a nuisance."

The noble Lord said

This new clause proposes to give power to the river boards to purchase or take on lease all dwelling houses and other buildings for persons employed by them and to erect, fit up, maintain and let any such buildings or any lands for the time being belonging to them. Under the clause we have just passed the only power given to the boards is to erect such offices and other buildings as they may require. The river boards, like the catchment boards, are to be faced with considerable difficulty in housing their servants, especially as some would be required to serve very frequently in out of the way districts. In these days of great restrictions in the building of houses it seems to be reasonable to give the boards power to purchase as buildings become vacant and are purchasable. I understand that there will be some objection to this proposal on the ground that the boards would be entering into competition with (a) local authorities and (b) other public authorities. But the Bill we are now dealing with is not for to-day or for to-morrow, but for a long time ahead. Therefore, we have to get the powers in order that the boards can carry out their work efficiently. If the noble Earl were to tell me that the powers of the catchment boards were to be transferred to the new authorities, the case might be met, because I understand the catchment boards to-day have power to erect cottages for their workpeople and have in fact done so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)

Earl DE LA WARR

I would like to support the noble Lord in his Amendment. It seems to be very useful. We have all learnt to hear with deep shame of any idea of tied cottages. This undoubtedly is the complete tied cottage. In fact, I almost recognize in the arguments the noble Lord used, the exact words generally coming from these Benches on that subject. "Working at all hours and in remote districts"—for a moment I thought the noble Lord was talking about the cowman, but no, it is the servant of the river board. In spite of this, I think we might be able to overcome the prejudices this side of the House has always had on this question in order to support the Amendment, taking due note of it for future occasions.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The powers of the catchment boards will be transferred to the river boards, and I understand that these powers are to erect or rent buildings for the men on the job, that is to say, men such as lock keepers or those keeping water gauges, hut it does not apply to such general servants as secretaries and typists. It would be unwise to extend the existing powers, because it would make the river boards into housing authorities, and they would only add to the claims on materials and man-power. I can assure noble Lords, that the powers of erecting houses for people immediately on the job will be transferred and that houses can be erected.

Earl DE LA WARR

And of course these houses will be duly tied, will they?

Lord SHEPHERD

I am very pleased to have the statement from my noble friend that the catchment boards have certain power in building cottages for their workpeople and that that will be transferred to the new river boards. I am very glad of this despite the reminder I received from the noble Earl opposite. The tied cottages so often denounced in this House are those that have been erected and which can be used for purposes of intimidation very frequently—

Earl DE LA WARR

No! Shame!

Lord SHEPHERD

I said, can be used and have been used quite frequently for purposes of intimidation. Perhaps I had better add, do not say that every landowner and every proprietor of a house has been guilty of that. The noble Earl at one time sat on these Benches and I have no doubt when he did he took as strong exception to the use of this intimidation, as I do to-day.

Earl DE LA WARR

Never.

Lord SHEPHERD

In view of the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, I have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15:

Power to take samples of effluents.

15.—(1) A river board shall have a right, at all reasonable hours, to obtain and take away samples of any effluent which is passing from any land into any river, stream or inland water in the river board area.

(2) The result of any analysis of a sample taken under this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any legal proceedings unless the following requirements have been complied with, that is to say, the person taking the sample shall forthwith notify to the occupier of the land his intention to have it analysed, and shall there and then divide the sample into three parts, shall cause each part to be placed in a container which shall be sealed up and marked and shall—

1. (a) deliver one part to the occupier of the land;
2. (b) retain one part for future comparison; and
3. (c) if he thinks fit to have an analysis made, submit one part to the analyst.

5.20 p.m.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE moved, in subsection (1), to omit "at all reasonable hours." The noble Duke said: This Amendment: merely asks to leave out the words "at all reasonable hours." I believe it is the case that there is sometimes bad pollution due to the discharge of objectionable effluent in the middle of the night, or at some other time when it is thought that the inspectors may not be about. I think there has been some discussion with the Ministry, and they hold the view that under conditions of that kind any hour is, in fact, a reasonable hour to make an inspection, and therefore my Amendment would be unnecessary. If that be so, the words "any reasonable hour" are unnecessary, and might unduly restrict the officials of the river board from making inspections where there is reason to believe that objectionable effluent is being discharged into the river at a time, by day or night, when people think they can get away with it. I would urge the noble Earl to accept my Amendment that inspectors should be allowed to inspect at any hour. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 22, leave out from ("right") to ("to") in line 23.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)

Lord SHEPHERD

I have an Amendment dealing with the words "all reasonable hours" which follows immediately on this one, and it may save time if I say now what I have to say on the subject. In my Amendment I propose the elimination of the words "all reasonable hours" and the substitution of the words "any time." The reason I object to the words "all reasonable hours" is that it means giving notice that on some occasion you are going to visit a place in order to test the water that is coming from it. There would be many occasions where, if notice had to be given, no evidence would be secured. Therefore I hope it may be possible for the noble Earl to accept my Amendment. There is one other point. The person who will determine what hours are reasonable will not be the person who represents the authority; it will be the culprit who has been putting into the water the effluent which destroys the amenities of the district.

Earl DE LA WARR

At first sight I did not like the look of this Amendment. One thinks of inspectors who go round without proper warning, and at any time of night, as "snoopers" rather than as inspectors. However, I cannot see how this clause can be properly administered without the change which the noble Duke and the noble Lord suggest, and we shall certainly support them in their Amendments.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

First, I would like to disabuse the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on two points. In the first place, it would not be necessary to give notice. The fact that the words "at all reasonable hours" are used in no way implies that notice must be given. Secondly, it would not be the culprit who would decide as to what are "reasonable hours." If anybody had to decide that, it would be the High Court Judge, if the case were brought to Court. I would like the noble Duke of Devonshire to consider this point. We put in "all reasonable hours" as a protection for the private citizen. Obviously one would want to take an effluent at any time if one thought it would come out, and we consider that the words "all reasonable hours" will allow the inspector to take it at three o'clock in the morning, or any time he likes if he suspects that the effluent is there. We put in those words only to protect a man from being knocked up and disturbed unnecessarily, perhaps by an unpleasant officer who might possibly exceed his powers in that way. In view of that fact, I would ask the noble Duke whether he wishes to press his Amendment.

Lord STRABOLGI

I hope my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and the noble Duke, will press this matter. The expression "at all reasonable hours" is a term of words used in inspecting houses to let, but even then obviously you must not go at two o'clock in the morning. I would like to put this point to my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon. His gamekeepers are on his estate to prevent poaching. If they are allowed to operate only at what may be considered to be reasonable hours, the poachers may come in the small hours of the morning and do the damage. The effluent that is causing the damage to rivers may be kept until after dark. That fact may be perfectly well known, and yet the officials of the board will not be able to do anything, because any Court would hold that "reasonable hours" meant hours of daylight, ordinary hours, and so on. I think there is some substance in this Amendment.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

I have carefully considered the point raised by the noble Earl. I trust the board's inspectors will not be unpleasant individuals; I think most people connected with this business are quite reasonable people. This Amendment deals only with powers to take samples from a river. Powers of entry are dealt with in the next clause, and I do not in any way propose to interfere with those. As I read the Bill, it would be an offence if a sample were taken at other than "a reasonable hour." I think, therefore, that the words are objectionable.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

Would the noble Duke be satisfied if I looked into this between now and the Report stage?

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

With that assurance, I shall be pleased to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.27 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved to add at the end of subsection (1): or into any ditch or channel discharging directly or indirectly into any such river stream or inland water.

The noble Lord said

As the Bill now stands, it is thought that the effluent reaching the river by some means other than that which is provided by direct access from a river bank will not come under the terms of the Bill. I think that if the words of my Amendment are included, much of the effluent which reaches the river in that alternative way will also be covered. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13 line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I hope the noble Lord will not pursue this Amendment, because I think it would tighten things instead of loosening them. As the Bill now stands, any water can be taken which reaches the river from any source. It does not define whether it comes by ditch, by dyke or anything else. Samples of water can be taken from anywhere. If these words are added other means which might be suspect might thereby be eliminated. In other words, it would make the power much more restricted, and I do not think that is the intention of the noble Lord. In view of that, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

Lord LLEWELLIN

Is the noble Earl quite right on that point? The Government have put in the Bill the words "into any river, stream or inland water." If they had only the words "into any inland water," I could see the force of the noble Earl's argument, but when the words "river" and "stream" are included, why not put in also "ditch or channel"? I really cannot see that the noble Earl's reason for rejecting this Amendment is a very strong one. I doubt if the noble Lord's Amendment restricts the position at all. I should have thought rather that it widened it.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I can see the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, but obviously we have included the words "river, stream or inland water" to distinguish it from the sea, the salt water or the estuary. We have here the words "passing from any land into any river, stream or inland water, "—whether it comes by bucket, pipe, ditch or dyke—

Lord LLEWELLIN

It is not "by," it is "into."

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I think the Amendment actually makes it more restricted, because there might be some way in which this effluent would come which we have not yet discovered. I admit it is a doubtful point.

The Earl of PERTH

I hope the noble Earl will look into it with his legal advisers.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I shall be very happy to look into this point if noble Lords are doubtful.

Lord LLEWELLIN

May I say that it is not, "entering by any ditch or channel," but "entering into any ditch or channel."

Lord SHEPHERD

In view of what my noble friend has said, I am very delighted to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I hope I am coming to the end of these Amendments. I must thank noble Lords for the very generous support they have given me up to the moment.

Lord LLEWELLIN

This is a bad Amendment.

Lord SHEPHERD

If you look at Clause 17 you will find that it says: Any person who wilfully obstructs any person exercising a right conferred by this Act will be subject to punishment. But if you look at this subsection you find a form of obstruction that may not be dealt with by Clause 17. It says: The result of any analysis of a sample taken under this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any legal proceedings unless the following requirements have been complied with, that is to say, the person taking the sample shall forthwith notify to the occupier of the land his intention to have it analysed, and shall there and then divide the sample up into three parts, shall cause each part to be placed in a container which shall be sealed up and marked and shall—

1. (a) deliver one part to the occupier of the land;
2. (b) retain one part for future comparison; and
3. (c) if he thinks fit to have an analysis made, submit one part to the analyst."

Suppose the culprit upon whose land you have gone in order to take your sample is not present. So far as I can see there is nothing in this clause that compels the culprit to be present, and if he is not present, how can you carry through the things mentioned in this subsection? En view of the difficulties that are apparent I beg to move the elimination of the subsection.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 26, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Shepherd.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I do not think that the difficulties as pictured by the noble Lord are quite so bad as he says. This method of dealing with the matter has been in operation for some time and is usually accepted as evidence, without any difficulty. What I imagine would happen is that you would go in and take a sample of the effluent and would divide it up—probably with a witness to see that you made the right division—into three parts. You would then notify the owner and give him one part. You would have one part analysed and keep one part yourself. If there were a question of legal proceedings, you would have very much better evidence than if you had just taken one sample yourself, even with a witness, and had had it analysed.

Lord SHEPHERD

Suppose we follow up the line the noble Earl is now suggesting. How are you going to deal with the point that the sample shall forthwith be given to the occupier of the land,—that you shall there and then divide the sample into three parts and deliver one part to the occupier of the land? I understand why it is suggested that you should give one part to the occupier of the land, but if the occupier is not there how can you prove to the occupier that the sample you have given to him is the one which was taken? Surely this subsection presupposes that the occupier will be present to receive forthwith his notice and the container with his share of the sample that has been taken.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I dislike contradicting the noble Lord, but I do not think that is the intention. The words are: … shall forthwith notify to the occupier of the land his intention … I think the word "forthwith" is defined in the dictionary as "without delay." Therefore, having taken a sample he would notify the occupier without delay that he was going to have the sample analysed. I presume that the man would probably have a witness, perhaps two witnesses, with him, and in the event of there being a dispute as to it being the correct sample he would be backed up by at least two reputable witnesses.

Lord LLEWELLIN

May I interrupt once more? I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is in the wrong and the Government are in the right. This procedure has long been an established custom under the Food and Drugs Act, and it does mean that from the start the occupier knows the sample that is going to be used against him and has an opportunity of having his own analysis. Therefore, if the matter comes to the Courts there is not likely to be so much dispute as to whether it was a properly taken analysis or not. There are three parts, and if there is any dispute the Court can always have their own part—the third part—opened, and can check it with either of the other two parts which have been analysed, perhaps by two different analysts on behalf of two different parties. It is a very, well known procedure in all Court proceedings of that kind under the Food and Drugs Act, and I think it is quite properly included in this Bill. I am sorry that in spite of the noble Lord's thanks to me after the last Amendment he has no reason to thank me now.

Lord ROCHESTER

I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment, because the de facto position is that it is difficult enough to bring a culprit to book now, but this is very valuable help in doing so. If this subsection were eliminated it would add to the difficulties of accomplishing the end the noble Lord himself intends. I heartily support the Government's position and hope that this subsection will be retained.

Lord SHEPHERD

In view of the statement made by my noble friend, fortified as he has been by the noble Lord opposite, I have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE moved, in subsection (2), to substitute for the word "forthwith" the words "without avoidable delay." The noble Duke said: Whilst I entirely approve the general principle of subsection (2), and am glad the noble Earl has adhered to it, I am not quite sure about the meaning of the word "forthwith." Suppose, for instance, that a sample were taken at midnight of effluent coming from a factory which did not open until eight o'clock in the morning. It might be held that "forthwith" meant immediately, and that the sample had not been delivered immediately.

I recollect a case which has a bearing upon this point. Many years ago, during my tempestuous youth, I was guilty of a grave irregularity during the process of a Division in another place. It was the last Division on a Thursday night, and as soon as the Division was over we all went home. When we reassembled on Friday morning the attention of Mr. Speaker was called to this irregularity, and he looked at his book of rules and said: "My rules are quite clear. My attention was to be called forthwith to any irregularity which occurred in the course of a Division. My attention was not called forthwith. It is now eleven o'clock on Friday morning, and nobody can say that that is 'forthwith, ' when it has regard to something which happened at eleven o'clock on Thursday evening. I am unable to take any notice whatever of the incident." That seems to have a very close bearing upon this point. Unless the noble Earl has any strong objection to the words I suggest, I think they are rather better and would strengthen the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 29, leave out ("forthwith") and insert ("without avoidable delay").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The noble Duke has made a very good case indeed for this word. I do not think there is a great deal in it, but there are reasons for keeping the word "forthwith" which I should like to point out. This is the same wording as that used in the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act of 1937 and other Acts. It might be a little unwise to throw doubts on this word which has been used, and has now acquired some consistency, by altering it in this new Bill. For that reason I think the noble Duke's fears will not be realized, and in the circumstances I hope he will withdraw his Amendment.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

In view of what the noble Earl says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

5.41 p.m.

Clause 16:

Powers of entry and inspection.

(8) If any person who in compliance with the provisions of this section or of a warrant issued thereunder is admitted into a factory or workplace discloses to any person any information obtained by him in the factory or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall, unless such disclosure was made in the performance of his duty, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

The Marquess TOWNSHEND moved to add to subsection (8): and if any member of a river board or other person who in the course of the exercise by him of any functions under this Act receives any such information as aforesaid shall use that information or any part thereof for his own purposes or shall disclose the same to any other person he shall be liable on summary conviction to the like penalties. The noble Marquess said: I do not want to weary your Lordships at his late hour, but I would like to point out, in moving this Amendment, that under subsection (8) of Clause 16, any person who has been inspecting premises, and possibly finding out information from a factory or secret workplace, is liable to severe penalties if he discloses that information to anybody "unless such disclosure was made in the performance of his duty." There is nothing I see in the Bill that prevents the person who is receiving the information from making use of it for his own benefit, and the words I wish to add would make the person receiving that information liable to the same penalties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Marquess Townshend.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I do not know that I altogether see the force of the noble Marquess's objection. As he says, anyone obtaining this information would be subject to certain penalties for disclosure. I can think only of the members of the board as the persons to whom the information would be divulged—or their officers. The members of the board would obviously be in the same position as the ordinary members of a local authority. There is no such penalty against members of local authorities. There has never been any question of their divulging information, and it has not been considered necessary to have any such penalties in order to preserve their confidence, integrity, and discretion. I am wondering why the noble Marquess thinks that in this particular case this extra penalty would be needed.

The Marquess TOWNSHEND

I think there are several cases when it might be disclosed. We have a large number of people on these boards. If a person receives information, either by a loose piece of paper or by word of mouth, there is no means of preventing misuse.

Earl DE LA WARR

I think this subsection 1s quite clear. It says: If any person who in compliance with the provisions of this section or of a warrant issued thereunder is admitted into a factory or workplace dicsloses … I need not go further. As it is at present, it relates only to the person who actually enters the premises. But he might go to a meeting and, in pursuance of his duties, divulge information, quite properly, to a room full of people, either members of an authority or their officials. The information might then be divulged by one of these other persons. I do not see how by any conceivable stretch of imagination one could say that this subsection covers the matter. I therefore suggest that there is a point here, and if the noble Earl cannot actually agree to the Amendment, I hope that he will at least reconsider the matter.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

In view of the powerful arguments just advanced I must say that there: is a case. I do not quite agree with the wording of the Amendment, but if the noble Marquess will be prepared to withdraw it now, I will consider the matter before Report stage and he may either put forward an alternative or we might do something ourselves to come to some agreement.

The Marquess TOWNSHEND

I thank the: noble Earl for what he has said. I am not particularly enamoured of the words of the Amendment but if he will agree to the principle I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:

Procedure for making byelaws.

(7) The Ministers, if they consider that the revocation of any byelaw is necessary or desirable, may, after giving notice to the river board and considering any objections raised by them, and, if so required by them, holding a public local inquiry, revoke that byelaw.

The Marquess TOWNSHEND moved, in subsection (7), after "board" to insert: of their intention to revoke that byelaw and after giving notice of such intention in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area to which that byelaw applies.

The noble Marquess said: If your Lordships will turn to Clause 18, subsection (2), you will see that: Byelaws shall not have effect until confirmed by the Ministers…. and that: … notice of the intention to apply for confirmation shall be given in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area to which the byelaws will apply. That is for confirmation of byelaws. It is suggested in this Amendment that if any byelaws are to be revoked the same procedure should be used. I think this is reasonable, because if you revoke a byelaw which has been a law binding on people it is rather important that you should allow people to know that fact; it is just as important as telling them that you have confirmed a new byelaw. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 22, after ("board") insert the said words.—(Marquess Townshend.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

Obviously a byelaw is made usually, almost inevitably, to restrict the rights of the public and in defence of the particular authority by which it is made. Various byelaws are made, for instance, by railway companies for carrying out their functions. In that event, however, there is some considerable restriction of the rights of the general public; and it is considered that the general public should be informed and given the right to object. But if the byelaw is repealed no new restriction is imposed—the restriction is wiped off. The only people who are affected will be the local authority, for whom the byelaw was made, and they obviously ought to be officially notified, to give them a chance to object to the repeal. Speaking broadly, it seems unnecessary that the general public should be given a special chance to object to a thing that is not going to affect them adversely in any way.

Lord ADDINGTON

Apparently notification is not to be given to local authorities under this clause at all. I feel that notification in papers circulating in the area is not necessarily sufficient.

It may be a very large area with one or two newspapers circulating in one corner of it. Local authorities should be given direct information both about the byelaw itself and any amendment to it. Perhaps the noble Earl will bear that in mind.

The Marquess TOWNSHEND

I see the force of the noble Earl's argument, and I do not think I need press the matter any further. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

Power to promote and oppose legislation.

20. A river board, or two or more river boards acting jointly, may, with the consent of the Ministers, promote or may oppose Bills in Parliament or may apply for or oppose applications for statutory orders.

Lord SHEPHERD moved to omit "with the consent of the Ministers." The noble Lord said: We have been informed that the powers of the catchment boards under the Land Drainage Act of 1930 are carried forward to this measure. But here, I think, we have an instance to the contrary, because under Section 15 of the Land Drainage Act of 1930 catchment boards are given full powers of promoting or opposing Bills in Parliament. It is submitted that river boards should have similar powers. If you will refer to Clause 20, you will see that they can only do that, or they will only be able to do that, with the consent of the Ministers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 37, leave out ("with the consent of the Ministers").—(Lord Shepherd.)

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has put his finger on a point of truth. This is one case where powers are slightly altered. But, on the other hand, we have been creating in this Bill large new local authorities, and our object has been as much as possible to bring them into a parallel position, possessing parallel powers, with the older local authorities with which they will rank. Therefore, we have decided, or suggested, that to promote Bills should be a power which needs the consent of the Ministers. Although in this respect we are altering somewhat the powers which are transferred, I suggest that it is better to give unity to the country and a uniform outlook to local authorities in their administration. With those words, I do hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

Lord LLEWELLIN

I must say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has got rather a good point here. It may be quite right that it is only with the consent of the Ministers that they should promote Bills in Parliament, but suppose the Minister himself is promoting a Bill in Parliament. A river board can only oppose it with the consent of the Minister. That is getting a little absurd. What is more, when the Minister is the only person who can make a statutory order, they have to get his consent before they can ask him to make a statutory order. When you come down to looking at opposing and making statutory orders, I really think there is a great deal in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has raised. I notice that the Minister answered it only in respect of the promotion of a Bill. It certainly seems to me that it is absurd, if the Minister, say, is promoting another River Board Bill and some of the river boards do not like it, that they have to go to the Minister and say: "May we oppose it through the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, or the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire or whoever it may be?" They have to get the Minister's leave before they can do that. I think they ought to be independent and be able to oppose a Bill without having to ask. the Minister's consent to such action.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

Actually, if I might join issue with the noble Lord, the consent of the Minister is required, not for opposing but for promoting a Bill.

Lord LLEWELLIN

Oh, I see.

Lord ADDINGTON

The clause does not say so. It says "may, with the consent of the Ministers, promote or may oppose." I think it is very doubtful, but I should have thought that local authorities had not got to get the consent of the Minister before either proposing or opposing a Bill. The noble Lord said that he was bringing them into line with local authorities, but is that so?

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I think the wording is a little obscure.

Earl DE LA WARR

I think it is plain.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I will look into the matter between now and Report stage.

Lord SHEPHERD

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

5.54 p.m.

Clause 21:

Default powers of Ministers.

21.—(1) If a complaint is made to the Ministers by any local authority whose area is wholly or partly included in a river board area, or by any drainage beard whose district is wholly or partly included in that area, or by any person appearing to the Ministers to have a substantial fishery interest in that area, that the river board have failed to exercise any of their functions in a case where they ought to have done so, or the Ministers are of opinion that an investigation should be made as to whether any river board have failed as aforesaid, they may cause a public local inquiry to be held into the matter.

(4) Where the Ministers have transferred any functions to themselves under this section, any expenses incurred by them in exercising those functions shall be paid in the first instance by them, but the amount of those expenses as certified by the Ministers shall on demand be paid to them by the board, and the board shall have the like power of raising the money required as they have of raising money for defraying expenses incurred directly by them.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The Amendment in my name is an Amendment which we have put down to meet a point raised by several noble Lords. I think it is covered generally. It gives the right to any person to complain to the Minister. I hope the Amendment will meet all the general points that have been raised. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 40, leave out from ("Ministers") to ("river") on page 18, line 1, and insert ("that a").—(Earl of Huntingdon.)

Lord ROCHESTER

I want to tender an express appreciation of this concession and to thank the Government for deleting the limitations in this clause and, by so doing, widening the purport in respect of causing public local inquiries to be held. I am very grateful to the Government and, on behalf of the Port of London Authority, I desire to express my appreciation.

The Marquess TOWNSHEND

I would like to join with the two noble Lords who have just spoken in thanking the Government. My point is completely covered, and I shall not move my Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord ADDINGTON

May I raise one point on subsection (4) about expenses? These are paid, in the first instance, by the Ministers and then the board are to be repaid on demand. I am concerned with the possible view that the effect may be to increase beyond the fourpence the amount that can be passed on to local authorities without their consent. Would the noble Earl look into that particular point?

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I shall be very pleased to look into that point.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.

Clause 24:

Transfer to river boards of assets and liabilities of catchment boards, fishery boards, and certain joint boards and joint committees of local authorities.

(2) Every agreement to which the transferor board was a party immediately before the appointed day, whether in writing or not, and whether or not of such a nature that rights, liabilities and obligations thereunder could be. assigned by the board, shall have effect as from the said day as if—

(4) Any legal proceedings pending on the said day by or against the transferor board shall be continued by or against the river board to the exclusion of the transferor board.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c), to insert: (d) for any reference (however worded and whether expressed or implied) to any fund or revenues of the transferor board there were substituted, as respects anything falling to be done on or after the said day, a reference to the corresponding fund or revenues of the river board.

The noble Earl said: This particular Amendment has been put down to make it quite clear that the revenue of the river boards will be used as security for loans that were originally contracted by catchment boards and secured on their revenue. It seems a fair proposition, and I hope noble Lords will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 37, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The next Amendment—to omit the word "legal" from subsection (4)—is put down by the Government. A river board would be liable to proceedings of any kind which had originally been started against a catchment board. It was suggested that arbitration might not be covered by this and this particular Amendment is proposed to delete the word "legal" so that all sorts of proceedings, whether arbitration or otherwise, would be generally covered. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 1, leave out ("legal").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

The last Amendment is on the same point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 1, leave out from "day" to the end of line 3 and insert "to which the transferor board is a party shall be continued as if the river board were a party thereto in lieu of the transferor board."—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 [Exercise of functions by appropriate Ministers in certain cases]:

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

This Amendment to add a new subsection to the Clause 1s designed to meet the point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, on the same clause. I do not know whether he would agree to our drafting. If so, I should be very pleased to move the Amendment.

The Duke of DEVONSHIRE

I am fully satisfied with the noble Earl's drafting, which I admit is an improvement on my own.

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

I thank the noble Duke and beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 25, line 28, at end insert: (2) By-laws made for the purposes specified in paragraph (p) of subsection (1) of Section fifty-nine of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, (which relates to the contamination of waters containing fish) shall be deemed to be by-laws to which paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection applies."—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 [Appointed day]:

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

This Amendment deals with a very small point. When taking over navigation powers, we need slightly different wording in the Bill because a lot of powers are taken over on the appointed day. When we take over navigation powers the river board will be already in the saddle, so to speak. This Amendment is to cover that point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 5, leave out from ("in") to ("shall") in line 6, and insert ("Section twenty-eight and Section thirty of this Act").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 [Interpretation.]:

The Earl of HUNTINGDON

This particular Amendment brings in the Minister of Transport, who is obviously concerned in questions of navigation or borrowing money for navigation purposes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 21, after ("the") insert ("borrowing of money, the acquisition of land and the making of byelaws for the purposes of functions transferred by that section, and the").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

6.3 p.m.

First Schedule:

PROCEDURE FOR MAKING ORDERS AND PROVISIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ORDERS.