§ 3.27 p.m.
§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ 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:
- (a) one member shall be appointed by the Ministers;
- (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;
- (c) the remainder of the members shall be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and shall consist of—
§ (ii) persons appointed to represent fishery interests in the river board area.
§
LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) to omit "three-fifths" and insert "one-third." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret to say that my noble friend Earl De La Warr is ill in bed with influenza. At his request, and with the permission of the House, I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands first on the Order Paper. Clause 2 (2) of the Bill explains how these new boards are to be constituted. One member is to be appointed by the Ministers—in this case, I understand, the Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries and Health together. Paragraph (b) of the subsection says:
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.
The subsection goes on, in paragraph (c):
The remainder of the members shall be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and shall consist of (i) persons appointed, after consultation with the drainage boards … and (ii) persons appointed to represent fishery interests in the river board area.
§ In our earlier discussions on this Bill the Government spokesman who introduced it stated that the Government are 254 following the broad principle of representation in accordance with the financial contributions made. Although I was not here through all the stages of the Bill, I remember the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, dealing with one Amendment on the ground that it would have meant a departure from that principle. That was when we were discussing the matter during the Committee stage. If I may, I will to-day quote one example, that of the Welland Catchment Board. In the year 1946-47, which is the last year for which we have accounts, the local authorities contributed £6,970 towards the total expenditure of that Board, and the internal drainage board contributed no less than £25,532. If one works out the figures on the proportions laid clown by the Minister in the Bill, one finds that the people who contributed the £25,532 will have a possible maximum of only fifteen members—excluding the chairman—as against the twenty-four representatives of the local authorities. The total, of course, will be forty. The twenty-four members would represent people who had contributed the £6,900 and the fifteen would represent those who had contributed the £25,532. That, quite clearly, departs from the general principle of giving representation in accordance with the financial contribution.
§ I am told that there is another area, the Ouse area, in which similar circumstances apply. The clause as now drawn is only permissive. The Minister may now appoint "such number, not being less than three-fifths, or more thon two-thirds" from the county authorities. I am seeking to substitute for the term "three-fifths" the term "one-third," so that in that case of the Welland area, and also in the case of the Ouse area, fairness is ensured. After all, the subSection 1s only permissive. The Minister may do it. We on this side of the House, in many cases do not like giving all this latitude to Ministers, particularly perhaps, to present Ministers. In this case, however, we are saying that we are quite willing to give this latitude to the Minister of Agriculture so that dealings may be fair in these exceptional cases.
§ Fair dealings, so far as I can see, cannot be ensured in these exceptional cases so long as the Minister limits himself in the proportions at present laid down in this Bill. No doubt there were discussions before the Bill was introduced into the 255 House, and no doubt certain agreements 'have been reached with local authorities. Those agreements, probably, are on the general case; and normally they will be right, allowing as they do for the biggest proportion of representatives on the majority of these Boards to come from the local authorities. But for the sake of one or two exceptional cases, in order that justice may be done and that justice may seem to be done, I believe the Minister would be well advised to accept this Amendment. If he will do so, people interested in drainage matters, who feel themselves closely concerned in this, will feel that they will get justice and fair representation on these boards. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2 line 14, leave out ("three-fifths") and insert ("one-third").—(Lord Llewellin.)
§ The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE and FISHERIES (The Earl of Huntingdon)My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has made out an extremely able case for the Amendment which is now before the House. One must confess that, on the face of it, it seems to be eminently reasonable and fair. I am sure many noble Lords on both sides of the House must have asked themselves why it is that the Government have taken the line of steadily resisting this Amendment. There must be, clearly, some very good reason for their objections. I should like to repeat, if I may, one phrase from the debate on this matter when it was in Committee. It was said, "This is a compromise Bill." I stress that. We have had to take a line somewhere between the different interests, bearing in mind that those different interests have their own ways of looking at things and cherish their own points of view. His Majesty's Government have therefore been obliged to consider both sides of the question and have done their best to arrive at a fair and reasonable compromise on the matter before them.
Lord Llewellin has quoted me as having said in the previous debate that the size of the contribution should determine the question of representation. It is true that generally we have observed the principle that only those who are contributing should be allowed to have representation on the boards. I think that that is a 256 very fair and reasonable principle. But the position is somewhat different when the boards are actually formed. Then, we do not propose to adhere to the principle that the exact proportion of the contribution should be reflected in the representation on the board. Our idea—and this is something I wish specially to emphasize—is that these boards should rather gather together people with expert knowledge, efficient people who will take a broad view and will look at the problems of a river board area, not from the point of view of any sectional interests but with open minds, having regard to what can best be done in any given set of circumstances. Therefore, we maintain that an increased contribution should not increase the need for specialized knowledge on the board. That is a point which I should like to make very clearly.
It is true that there are these Fen areas to which the noble Lord has referred, particularly the Welland and the Great Ouse areas, where drainage interests will contribute to a very large extent; in fact their contributions will be in excess of any other contributions to the finances of the board. But we are faced with this difficulty. If we were to meet the point raised by the noble Lord and say that in these particular instances we would adopt a different procedure altogether and go back to the principle that the size of the contribution should determine the amount of representation on the board, then we should do away with the principle on which we have drawn up the Bill. With regard to other areas, where drainage authorities and fishery interests contribute practically nothing at all, it would be impossible to argue that we should go back to the original principle, and give them what we think is a fairly large-sized representation on the board. I think your Lordships will agree that we must stick to one thing or the other, either to the principle that according to how much you contribute so you will have a commensurate amount of representation, or to that principle to which the Government have adhered all along—namely, that we should try to get the best possible board we can, that we should devise the best possible combination of expert knowledge in full expectation that the boards will take a broad view in doing their work.
Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I follow this up a little further. Under 257 the Land Drainage Act you will remember that the local authorities' proportion on catchment boards is not less than two thirds of the board, whereas under this Bill it is not more than two-thirds and not less than three-fifths. At the same time we have added all sorts of functions to the duties which the river boards will perform. These duties concern local authorities very much, but the local authority representation has been reduced. We are giving the boards functions quite outside drainage, such as, for instance, measuring the flow of rivers, gauging rainfall, possibly navigation, preventing river pollution and so on. Taking into account the effect of these matters on industry and water undertakings, these functions will inevitably be the concern of the local authority representatives.
Finally, I would like to stress a point, which I think is very pertinent to the argument. If this Amendment were passed into law, would it achieve the object for which it was intended? Your Lordships would all admit that drainage works., or drainage functions, all need finance to carry them out. Even if, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, we altered our numbers, changed the Bill and in these particular areas gave the majority on the boards to the drainage interests, those interests could plan all sorts of work to, be done in the interests of drainage, but they would not necessarily have any more money to carry it oat, because the revenue of the boards comes from three sources. We have the fishery revenues, which presumably would stay the same. Then there are the drainage rates. I think that in that respect the drainage members would be in a very invidious position, for if they were in a large majority they would be the final arbiters as to the amount of the drainage rates. In fact in the case of catchment boards we have had in the past many appeals against the high level of these rates. Precepts furnish the other source of revenue.
My last point is that the power to veto a precept in excess of 4d. in the pound will remain with the local authority members whatever the proportion of representation on the board, and it may be that even with this Amendment as part of the Bill, if the boards split up into opposing interests you would not get the necessary funds to carry out any enlarged programme envisaged by the 258 drainage members. For that purpose, taking into consideration the whole spirit of the Bill and the nature of the problem we are trying to meet, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
§ Viscount SWINTONMy Lords, I venture to add one word to what I said last time in supporting this Amendment when it was originally introduced and when the Government promised to give it further consideration. I heard everything that was said last time, and I have listened most carefully to the Under-Secretary in justifying this clause as it now stands. I am bound to say that nearly all the arguments which he advanced seemed to me to be arguments for latitude and not arguments for keeping this within a sealed pattern. It seems to me quite irrelevant to say that the county councils must rot be less than three-fifths because, like Mr. Molotov, they have a power of veto. If they have a power of veto, they can exercise that veto whether their numbers are three-fifths, four-fifths or one-fifth. That seems to me to be a wholly irrelevant argument.
What has the noble Earl said? He said: "I want to get the best board I possibly can. I want to look round for the people who will be the best experts." I would have thought that that was a reason for enlarging the number of people whom the Minister can appoint, as against the number the county councils or other councils have to appoint. He really unintentionally misrepresented the noble Lord, Lord" Llewellin. Lord Llewellin was not saying that, in the Welland case, because the drainage board contributes 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. that they must have so much representation—not at all. He left it completely to the Minister as to how many of those people he should appoint, or indeed as to whether he should appoint any of them at all.
Therefore, it is not a choice between the sealed pattern which the Minister proposes—and which indeed is the only sealed pattern we have here—and some other specifically defined thing which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, proposes; it is between a Vide discretion vested in the Minister and a limitation on the Minister's discretion forcing him in every single case to give to the local authorities not less than three-fifths. I really should have thought that the best way of getting the right kind of experts was to give this 259 wider latitude to the Minister. How can it hurt him? He need not appoint, whether you take the one-third which my noble friend suggested, or whether, if the House would accept it, you take a compromise and say half and half. It does not force him, but gives him that wider discretion. He told us last time that he does not know how he is going to appoint these boards. Certainly they ought to be different boards in different cases. There is an infinite variety not only in the way the revenue is raised, but in the duties to be discharged. Certainly if I were the responsible Minister, I should want the widest latitude I could have to get the best possible board.
There is another reason which I ventured to put to the Government last time. When orders are made by these boards they are to come here. First of all they are to be published and then everybody is to have a chance of objecting to them. You are much more likely to get objections if you have a stereotyped board. If you have wide discretion to make the board what you think is best for its purpose, you are much more likely to get agreement in the making of the orders. After all, it is agreed orders and agreed plans that you want, if possible. You are also, with great respect, much more likely not to have exception taken to these orders when they are brought to this House or another place—I think an affirmative Resolution is required in all these cases—but they would be the subject of debate in both Houses. You are much more likely to get agreement if you have this wide latitude.
I beg the Government—I was going to say not to be pigheaded—not to be "sealed patterned" about this. We had a debate the other day upon national administration and national boards. I was then appealing to them to avoid stereotyped sealed-pattern plans. It was said that I was pressing at an open door and the Lord Chancellor said that he could not agree more. This again is a national board or indeed is a series of very varied national boards, and I ask the Government to accept the principle that they accepted only a week or two ago and allow themselves the latitude which I am perfectly certain they are going to find they need.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, it is difficult to reply in face of the great eloquence of the noble Viscount who has just sat down. He has a great power of oratory and argument. Nevertheless I should like to point out one or two things. He probably misunderstood me, or I did not express myself clearly enough on one point. While I questioned whether this Amendment would have the effect that was intended—owing to the fact that the precepts above 4d. might not be increased—it is perfectly true that in any case the authorities would have the final veto on that point. They are however most likely to achieve agreement on the board with the other interests where they have kept what they think is their fair proportion of representation and fair rate level. They are much more likely to disagree with an increase in the precept when they are in a minority and think that the drainage interests are forcing things through on their own behalf.
I think, however, that the real issue is the extent of the latitude which should be vested in the Minister, and it is rather surprising to hear it expressed so eloquently on the other side of the House. After all, although it is unlikely at the moment, this Government may change. Ministers come and go, and we cannot always be quite certain how a Minister will use this latitude. I hope that all your Lordships will agree that if this scheme is to work we must have the confidence of the local authorities; they are to be the motive force behind it. It is only by giving them the assurance that they are to have adequate representation on the river boards that we shall retain their interest. We assure noble Lords opposite that local authorities and other interests will have a fair representation on the boards, and I appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF PERTHMy Lords, the arguments adduced by the noble Earl do not seem to me to have very great validity. The number of members of a board will be a maximum of forty. One member is to be appointed by the Minister, leaving, of course, thirty-nine. It will be in the Minister's discretion to appoint up to a maximum of twenty-six and all this Amendment asks is that he shall not necessarily appoint more than thirteen. What we suggest is that while the Minister can appoint twenty-six members, in order to allow of an exceptional case he shall be in 261 a position to appoint only thirteen from the local authorities. I do not think there is great validity in the argument that local authorities will be upset because they want to be certain of having not fewer than twenty-three representatives. It will be only occasionally that the Minister will vary the number, according to his discretion.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMy Lords, I have listened with great interest to this discussion. As I understand it, the case for the Amendment rests on two, or possibly three, cases where at present drainage interests are predominant. In those cases, in any event, the Minister would be entitled to appoint up to two-fifths if the subsection remained as it is. We all know quite, well that in areas such as the Welland and the Ouse areas the county councils have among their members a large number intimately associated or acquainted with drainage," and it is almost inconceivable that in such cases the county councils will not appoint members interested in drainage. They would be additional to the two-fifths to which the drainage and fishery interests would be entitled, so that the preponderance the noble Lord wishes to avoid—that is quite reasonable—would in fact not exist. I cannot imagine it existing in any case. I also understand that this clause has been drawn up as a result of many consultations, which we know precede the fabrication of Bills, between the Departments of the Government and the authorities concerned. It is a result of an understanding, a tacit agreement, between them and because it is such my noble friend feels that he cannot depart from it. The suggestion half made by the noble Viscount—
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI make it firmly.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONThe noble Viscount made it fully—all the better. As to the suggestion about the half-way house, I can make no promise at the moment. The agreement of which I have spoken is part of an obligation honourably entered into and as, in fact, the danger which the noble Lord apprehended will not arise, I hope he will not press his Amendment.
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, we are obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for intervening on this point. In regard to what both he and the noble 262 Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said, as the Bill is at present drawn even if an authority are bearing a very large proportion of the expenditure of the drainage board they cannot have more than two-fifths of the members on the board. We think that is quite unreasonable. I know that it occurs only in two or three cases. But I think it is right so to pass legislation that there is No 1njustice, if we can avoid it, even in one or two cases. By putting in this permissive to the Minister we should avoid it. I fully appreciate the point made about the members of the county councils who understand about drainage but, on the other hand, I know that on quite a number of local authorities, when they are setting up committees, a large number of members apply to be put on the more important committees, such as finance and others in which they are interested. Then, at the end, they exclaim, "Gracious me, who is going on the drainage committee?" And one very likely finds, as my noble friend behind me says, the dregs of the county councils on the drainage committees.
At any rate, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for saying that the Government will consider whether, between the three Parties of the House, we cannot com promise on one-half, instead of the Government's two-fifths and my one-third. That would enable a substantial measure of justice to be done. I think it would be best, therefore, if I put on the Order Paper an Amendment for Third Reading to substitute one-half. I will withdraw the present Amendment, in the hope that everything will be met on Third Reading. Even if it is not, probably no great harm will be done by inserting on the Order Paper the Amendment which I have indicated. I believe that it is the general view of this House that it would be the right thing. Although we must respect these agreements with the county councils, we should not in any way abrogate to the local authorities our powers as a House of Parliament as to what should and what should not be in a Bill. The Bill, I would remind your Lordships, originated with this House and it is not as if we were doing anything to a Bid from another place. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONMay I intervene for one moment? I know the noble Lord would wish the position 263 to be clear. I said—and, of course, I will abide by it—that we will explore the possibility of having one-half with all good will. The noble Lord appreciates that I am not giving any undertaking, as I have no authority to do that.
§ LORD LLEWELLINI hope I did not misinterpret the noble Viscount. I am quite clear myself.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD SHEPHERD moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) after "appointed" to insert "whether from their own members or not." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the words of the Amendment standing in my name have been taken from Section 3 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. The purpose of the Amendment is to permit all county councils and borough councils, when appointing representatives to river boards, to go outside their own membership if they so desire. I venture to think that this is not contrary to democratic principles. It is no more than an attempt to give to the local authorities a little extended power. The problem, as we see it, is this. A local authority may not find within its own membership the type of experience that would be valuable to the river boards. If there are local authorities of that kind, it would, of course, be a good thing if in their case they could go outside to appoint their representatives. In subsection (2) no guidance is given to local authorities at all. They are given powers of appointment, but it is not said there that those appointments must be confined to the membership of the authority. The catchment boards, who have had great experience of this matter, would like their powers brought into this Bill so that the new river boards could act in this way. Under subsection (6) of the clause which is under discussion guidance is given to the local authorities as to the type of persons they should appoint, but beyond that there is nothing in the Bill which gives the necessary authority. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, after ("appointed") insert ("whether from their own members or not").—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, as I have previously said, we want 264 these river boards to include all specialist knowledge and wisdom, and if the boards wish to bring in members who are not members of local authorities we shall be only too pleased to agree. Therefore, we are happy to accept the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.5 p.m.
§
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to add to subsection (2):
after consultation with any association or person appearing to the Minister to represent a substantial fishery interest in that area.
The noble Earl saidMy Lords, this Amendment is put down to meet a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire. I hope he will be satisfied that the Amendment meets his point. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having put down this Amendment, which fully meets my point.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, my noble friend made some slight alteration to the Amendment which was on the Order Paper on the Committee stage in the name of the noble Duke, and he accepted that as a choice between three different Amendments, one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, the other put down by myself, and the third which we now have before us, with a very slight alteration. I expressed gratitude—as did other noble Lords—to my noble friend for this concession to meet the objection put forward by the various angling associations in the country that they have no direct right of access to or consultation with the Ministry. But I had not then had the opportunity of consulting the spokesmen of the anglers in the country. While they are appreciative of the efforts of my noble friend to meet their point of view, they are not quite satisfied. This Amendment does not altogether meet their objection.
They still say that the Bill gives rather an arbitrary power, and while, of course, they have the greatest faith in my noble friend and in every other member of the present wonderful Government, as all good men have, Ministers come and Ministers go, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, himself said on an earlier Amendment.
265 There may be changes, as he himself foreshadowed. Any change where he himself is concerned I am sure will be promotion. But we may get another Minister who is not so sympathetic as the present Minister or the noble Parliamentary Secretary in this House, and, therefore, at the request of various angling associations of some importance in the country, I have put clown the two Amendments to the Third Schedule which are printed on page 5 of the Marshalled List. These do not conflict with the Amendment now before the House, and I hope that my noble friend will see his way to accept either one or the other. Either will satisfy the angling interests. When we reach those Amendments I will explain the reasons for them moire fully.
The reason why this particular Amendment does not altogether satisfy the angling interests—though they admit it goes some way towards meeting them—is that the choice of who shall be consulted lies entirely with the Minister, and the term "substantial fishery interests" is vague. My noble friend knows, and many other noble Lords know, that there are great stretches of water in this country which are useless for the purpose of producing food—and it is from the food point of view that I am now speaking—because of their having been poisoned and polluted in the past. But as a result of this Bill these great stretches of water may be purified. There are canals, large drains, and many streams in the country, that used to be prolific of fish, which could again be stocked. Because fishing interests may be negligible in a certain part at the moment, that does not mean to say that in future years they may not become highly important.
My noble friend has a lively recollection of the debate we had last week on agriculture and the food situation of this country, and he would be the last to deny that the fresh water fisheries of this country have been sadly neglected from the point of view of the larder of the nation. Any stretch of pure water can be stocked with coarse fish, as is done on the Continent of Europe, and was done here in bygone days. In Elizabethan times our fresh water bore large quantities of fresh water fish. I am talking of coarse fish, which are the most valuable of fish foods if only the British housewife is taught how to cook and dress them. Therefore, to say that these boards, which 266 may be set up for a generation or so, shall be constituted as regards the fishery interests only after consultation with those whom the Minister is advised he should consult, may be unfair to important parts of the country with potential fishing interests. Therefore, while welcoming this concession, I hope, that my noble friend will see his way not to bar the other two Amendments, or one of them, which I have put down.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, after subsection (6), to insert:
(7) Where a river board is established for an area which consists of or includes the River Ouse (Yorks) Catchment Area or the River Trent Catchment Area, the order establishing the board shall provide for the appointment of a member by the National Coal Board, and that member shall be additional to the members appointed under subsection (2) of this section and shall be disregarded for the purposes of that subsection.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is submitted in order to allow the National Coal Board to appoint a member of the Board in excess of the usual number of forty. The reason for this is that in the old days the coal interests of certain areas in the Trent and Ouse districts were responsible, in case of subsidence and other matters, for restoring drainage and for any damage which might have been caused As a result, large sums of money were sometimes involved and it was thought right that these coal interests should have the power of appointing two members to the; catchment board. Now that the National Coal Board has taken over, we still think it would be right in these special cases to allow a member to be appointed by the National Coal Board to watch the matter in these specific areas. The Amendment fulfils that purpose. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, on the face of it this Amendment looked rather a bad one, because the noble Earl has throughout been telling us that he was going to have on this board "only those who had contributed substantially and directly to the board." Those were the words the noble Earl used. The National Coal Board is not a direct contributor to the Catchment Board of the Ouse any 267 more than are some of the big woollen industries which equally are situated in that area. It seems that in this case the Government are departing from their principle in order to rely on past precedent; and although that is always a pleasant thing to see in a Socialist Government, I feel I ought to mark the occasion by saying that we are noting it. We have no great objection to this extra person being on the board. I do not think he will do much good or much harm. But here, of course, we are departing from what was the original conception of this Bill, which gives me all the more hope that when the noble Earl comes to consider other matters the Government will themselves take the line then that they are taking on this occasion.
§ On Question, Amendment 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.
§
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (5), to insert as a new paragraph:
(b) for requiring any such authority to make payments to the river board in respect of expenses incurred by the board in exercising any functions transferred to them from the authority by the order.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns the Port of London Authority and was put down to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. Briefly, the Amendment gives power to the Ministers to decide what contribution should be made by the Port of London Authority towards the expenses of functions which have been transferred to the river board. Actually, we do not intend to take over the Port of
268
London Authority, so that the situation will probably not arise; but the power lies in the Bill. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Minister has the power to decide in case of dispute, and that there is a right of Parliamentary procedure. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, after ("pollution") insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ LORD ROCHESTERMy Lords, I suppose I ought to thank the noble Earl for this Amendment. As noble Lords are aware, on behalf of the Port of London Authority I took the greatest exception to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; and I feel that the words that are now appearing on the Marshalled List are, at any rate, less harmful than those to which I took exception on the Committee stage. I note that the Port of London Authority is not specifically mentioned, and for that I am grateful. It is here in more general terms; and for the concession, such as it is, I desire to thank the noble Earl.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21, leave out ("that transfer") and insert ("any transfer of functions made by the order").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8:
§ Transfer of navigation functions.
§ (3) An order made under this section shall be made in accordance with Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, and Part II of that Schedule shall apply for the purpose of making such orders subject to special Parliamentary procedure in the circumstances specified in that Part, and Part III of that Schedule shall apply with respect to the validity of such orders.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved in subsection (3), after "under" to insert "the preceding provisions of." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to meet the original Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, withdrew on the subject of navigation authorities. I should like to point out that we have actually gone further than his Amendment proposed. The Minister of Transport is allowed to appoint a member to the board in excess of the number of 269 forty, not only where navigation interests have been taken over, but also where they are being exercised. I hope that in view of these considerations the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 43, after ("under") insert ("the preceding provisions of").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, this was the Amendment to which I was referring earlier, and again it is acceptable. I thank the noble Earl for it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to add to the clause:
(4) Where functions are exercisable or are to become exercisable by a river board, being functions which have been or are to be transferred to the board by an order made under the preceding provisions of this section or have been so transferred to another river board and subsequently become or are to become exercisable by the first-mentioned board, and it appears to the Ministers that those functions, together with any other functions of the river board relating to navigation, are of sufficient importance to justify the appointment of an additional member of the board to represent the interests affected by the exercise of those functions, they may at any time by order provide for the appointment by the Minister of Transport of such a member, who shall be additional to the members appointed under subsection (2) of section two of this Act and shall be disregarded for the purposes of that subsection; and if at any time it appears to the Ministers that the functions which justified the appointment of such a member have ceased to be of sufficient importance to justify his continued membership, they may revoke the order and thereupon the member so appointed shall vacate his office.
The powers conferred by this subsection may be exercised by an order made under the preceding provisions of this section, or by an order made under section three of this Act establishing or varying the constitution of a river board, or by a separate order.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this follows on the first Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 48, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 9:
§ Conservation of water resources and provision of information.
§ (7) A river board may give directions requiring any person who in their opinion is 270 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:
§
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
(2) Any river board may submit to the Minister of Health a scheme for the measurement and recording of the rainfall in the river board area or any part thereof or of the fow or volume of any river, stream or inland water in the area, and for the installation and maintenance for those purposes of gauges or other apparatus and works connected therewith, and the Minister may approve any such scheme with or without modification, and on such approval the river board shall carry out the scheme.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment enables the river board to prepare and submit a scheme for the measurement and recording of rainfall, whereas before they could only be directed to do so by the Minister. I do not think there will be any objection to this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, at end, insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, we have no objection whatever to this proposed new subsection.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 8, line 12, leave out ("directions, and to furnish") and insert ("directions;
(b) to furnish").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this is also consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("thereby obtained") and insert ("obtained in pursuance of the directions of any scheme approved under the last preceding subsection").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, during the last stage of the Bill, 271 there was some discussion on the interpretation of the term "domestic use." In this Amendment, we have omitted that term, as we think it is possibly too restrictive. Instead, we have made use of the term "substantial use," which means that normal domestic use, and watering of cattle, cooling of milk and so on would not be affected. Only users of a substantial amount of water would have to make these returns. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 10, leave out from ("area") to ("or") in line 11 and insert ("in quantities which are substantial in relation to the flow or volume of the river, stream or inland water").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, the next Amendment allows the Thames and Lee Conservancy Board the same right as under the Land Drainage Act of precepting up to twopence in the pound. It has been represented that it should be fourpence in the pound as is allowed to river boards; but I suggest that as the expenses of gauging rivers are relatively small, the sum of money should adequately cover any such expenses. If the boards concerned think that that is not so, there will be nothing to prevent them applying to come within the general river boards jurisdiction, in which case they would share the obligations as well as the rights. I hope that in these circumstances noble Lords will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 40, at end insert ("and the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, so far as they relate to the said Conservators and Catchment Board, shall apply for the purposes of this Section as they apply for the purposes of the said Act").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.21 p.m.
§ 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.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (1), to delete "at all reasonable hours." The noble Earl said: My 272 Lords, this Amendment is to meet a point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, to leave out the words "at all reasonable hours." I hope it will satisfy the noble Duke and noble Lords. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, leave out ("at all reasonable hours").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, this Amendment does meet fully the point that was made on the Committee stage. I think it will facilitate the taking of samples and the prevention of river pollution by some industrial undertaking. We thank the noble Earl for meeting that point.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this next Amendment—in subsection (1)—is to meet a very minor point. It enables samples to be taken from a vessel, this is to say, a ship or houseboat which might possibly discharge an effluent into a river. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 31, after ("land") insert ("or vessel").—(The Earl of Huntingdon).
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I suggest that this is a very welcome improvement. The damage done by oil from motor vessels is sometimes very serious. I suggest, however, for consideration that the usual nautical phraseology is "ship or vessel." "Vessel" can have several meanings. A boiler, for example, is a vessel. I would suggest that, perhaps on Third Reading, the noble Earl would consider putting down "ship or vessel." Then there is no doubt about the meaning.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this Amendment is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It puts in the word "watercourse" to make the matter clear beyond any possible doubt. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 31, after ("stream") insert ("watercourse")—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I remember supporting the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on this Amendment. Although, for some reason, the noble Lord cannot be present to-day to thank 273 the noble Earl, as I took part I should like to thank him.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, now we come to an Amendment which is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—.
Page 13, line 37, after ("land") insert ("or vessel").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, after ("land") insert ("or vessel").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this Amendment is also largely consequential. It defines the word "watercourse." I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 13, line 44, at end insert—
(3) In this section the expression "watercourse" means any channel through which water flows:
Provided that it does not include any sewer maintained by a local authority or the council of a metropolitan borough, without prejudice, however, to the taking of samples under this section of any effluent passing from any such sewer into a river, stream, watercourse or inland water."—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ LORD LLEWELLINMy Lords, I suppose it is necessary to define "watercourse." We do not define "stream" and we certainly do not define "vessel," which seems to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, a more important thing perhaps to define if you mean "ship," because a vessel can mean a china jug or an earthenware pot. I do not suppose anybody has any objection if the Government think that "watercourse" should be defined, but I should have thought that it was taking an unnecessary precaution. I should have thought that: everybody knew that a watercourse was a channel through which water coursed or flowed. It is one of the most obvious words in the English language. If the Government, however, think it best to define it, we do not offer any objection.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
274§ 4.28 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 EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (8), to omit all words from the beginning down to and including "secret" and to insert:
If—
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this Amendment is to meet one which was put down by the noble Marquess, Lord Townshend. It makes it an offence for an officer of the board to disclose information; find it also makes it an offence for a member of a river board to disclose information which is given to him. I hope that this Amendment will meet the noble Marquess's point.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 19, leave out from the beginning to ("he") in line 23 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
The Marquess TOWNSHENDMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for saying that this Amendment does fully meet all the points.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 18 [Procedure for making by-lawss]:
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, on this clause there is an Amendment on rather a minor point. It provides that notice of a by-law must also 275 be inserted in the London Gazette as well as in the local newspapers. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 40, after ("in") insert ("the London Gazette and").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 20 [Power to promote and oppose legislation]:
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this is just a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 37, after ("or") insert ("without any such consent").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ First Schedule [Procedure for making orders and provisions as to the validity of orders]:
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point made by the noble Duke of Devonshire. It goes slightly further than what he proposed in his Amendment—namely, that national associations may also have to be consulted. I hope it will satisfy him, and therefore I beg leave to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 8, after ("shall") insert ("after consultation with such of the associations and persons concerned as the Ministers consider it appropriate to consult at that stage, prepare a draft order and shall")—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Second Schedule [Provisions as to river boards, their members, committees, proceedings, etc.]:
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this is largely consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 38, after ("Fisheries") insert ("The Minister of Transport").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to insert after paragraph 9:
10. In the case of a river board for an area which consists of or includes the River Ouse (Yorks) Catchment Area or the River Trent Catchment Area—
276
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is also largely consequential. It allows the National Coal Board to nominate another member should the original member cease to be a member of the board.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 24, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD STRABOLGI moved to add to paragraph 10:
(6) A river board shall if requested to do so by persons or associations having a substantial fishery interest in its area submit within a reasonable time after receiving such a request to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for his approval a scheme prescribing the manner in which persons representing the fishery interests within the area may be consulted with regard to fishery matters by the river board or any committee thereof exercising functions relating to those matters:
Any scheme so submitted shall be approved by the said Minister with or without modification and thereupon shall have effect as if it were a provision of the Order establishing the river board.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of the two Amendments to which I referred just now. I hope my noble friend will consider them very seriously before saying that he cannot accept them. They are put down at the request of the National Association of Fishery Boards, which is the statutory body administering the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act of 1923, and the National Federation of Anglers, which is a voluntary organization having a good deal of influence on and accomplishing a great deal of good work with regard to fresh water fishing. They are not altogether satisfied with the amended Amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, accepted by my noble friend. They want to be sure that they really will be consulted and that a scheme showing how they are going to be
277
consulted will be drawn up for the approval of the Ministers concerned. Which of the Amendments is considered most suitable or less objectionable to my noble friend does not really matter, because either would meet their particular point. As my noble friend knows quite well, the angling interests are very anxious indeed to help forward this Bill and its effects when it becomes an Act of Parliament, and they really want to be certain that they will have a voice in the appointments to these boards. I hope my noble friend will agree that their request is not unreasonable, and I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 45, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, I have a certain regret in resisting this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, because both my right honourable friend the Minister and myself have great sympathy with the fishery interests and want to see them enjoying adequate representation and being properly looked after. In fact, as the noble Lord mentioned earlier in regard to another Amendment, the importance of food to this country is a matter which concerns the fishery interests. The actual point of this Amendment is rather different from that which the noble Duke moved. As I understand it, the intention of the Amendment is to appoint by Statute an advisory committee which will be chosen by the fishery interests to advise the board not only in regard to the nomination or composition of the board but also on the day-to-day working of the board, presumably in regard to fishery interests. It is true that we have advisory committees in this country on various subjects, but they are national advisory committees which embrace the whole country. This Amendment would actually set up advisory committees to every river board in the country—
LORD STRABOLGIWill the noble Earl forgive me? I want to shorten matters. In fact these are consultative committees and not advisory committees. If these boards are set up they can be consulted by the river boards, but they will not have the right to interfere all the time.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONI may be wrong, but can the noble Lord point 278 out the difference between those two types of committees?
LORD STRABOLGIThe river board may go to these people if they have a point upon which they think they ought to consult them. But in regard to the other sort of committee it is not the intention at ail that they should have the right of supervising the board, so to speak. That is the difference.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONI am afraid I do not see that there is a very big difference. I see the noble Lords point but, after all, it is by no means obbgatory on whomsoever the authority may be, that they should take the advice of the advisory committee. The committee advises and no doubt can be consulted, but the board may not take any notice of the committee's findings. All that is laid down in the Amendment is the method and means of how they shall be consulted, and I do think this would be a tremendous innovation or departure from usual practice. So far as I know—and perhaps noble Lords may contradict me on this—no local authority has either such a consultative board or advisory committee. It would be a new departure in the affairs of this country.
But, quite apart from the constitutional aspect of the matter, I think that it would be unwise from the point of view of the fishery interests. I appreciate the noble Lord's feelings, and it is understandable that fishery interests may think they are going to be somewhat neglected or not given the adequate attention and importance which they certainly deserve. I do, however, suggest to the noble Lord that, if they go in to these boards whole-heartedly and take active part in them, they will gain an enormous advantage. For the first time they will really have a direct say in control regarding such matters of pollution as affect them; and I think on that basis, working broadly through the board, they may achieve their points rather better than by insisting on having separate sections which have to be consulted. Quite apart from that, the fisheries are now distinguished from a lot of other interests in that they have the right of actually being represented on the board itself, which is very important.
Further, in practically every locality where fishery is of any importance at all, 279 I presume there will be a fishery committee. The boards have the right of appointing such a committee and of co-opting up to one-third of the committee members who are not members of the board. These may be representative of angling societies or of different angling interests. So that, first, they have direct representation on the board; secondly, they can have their own fishery committee; and, finally, if they think they are being neglected or not receiving adequate or fair treatment, they have a remedy under Clause 21 which I presume they will use, and use effectively. On those grounds, and with the assurance that my right honourable friend and my-self have great sympathy with the Amendment, I hope the noble Lord may be induced to withdraw it.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I do not want to press this Amendment, though I do not altogether accept the argument of my noble friend. For example, whatever happens on these river boards, whether the Amendment of one-half is accepted or not, a most substantial interest and voting strength will remain with the local authorities, and in some parts of the country, notably in the West of England, it is the borough councils who are the worst offenders where river pollution is concerned. The River Wye has been almost ruined once or twice by pollution from towns, under borough councils, situated along its banks. It may be that it is not the fault of these councils, but that is by the way. All anglers are still a little nervous lest they may be overborne by the more powerful local authorities under this Bill. However, I have made my case as well as I can. My noble friend has not accepted it, and we must just agree to differ. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 4.42 p.m.
§ Third Schedule [Application of Enactments in Relation to River Board Areas]:
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 35, line 15, at end insert:
("Provided that Section four of the Doncaster Area Drainage Act, 1933, as amended by Article four of the Coal Industry Nationali-
280
sation (Doncaster Drainage) Order, 1947, shall not apply to any river board.").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD LLEWELLINmoved to add to paragraph 14:
So much of Section six of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, as requires that proceedings shall not be taken against any person under Part III of that Act without the consent of the Minister of Health shall cease to have effect.The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Earl De La Warr. It seems to me, having only just had my attention called to it to-day, that this Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, is in need of quite a considerable amount of revision, and it is one section of that Act which I seek by this Amendment to revise. At the present moment, or at any rate at the time when this Act was passed, a great number of provisions seem to have been put into it to protect industrial users, collieries and people of that sort, who by its provisions were largely given a right to have free access of their effluent into the rivers of our countryside. I hope that very soon we shall be able considerably to amend this old Act and thereby to ensure that the refuse from our factories and from our collieries is properly disposed of.The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, no doubt realizes what beautiful streams used to run down the valleys of South Wales, and what nasty dirty things they have now become as the result of a lot of effluent from coal mines being allowed to flow into them. And the same sort of thing has happened in many other parts of the country. I would point out that not only have the people concerned the defence that is put up to them under Section 4 of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, that "if they show to the satisfaction of the court having cognizance of the case that they are using the best practicable and reasonably available means to render harmless the poisonous, noxious or polluting fluid, so falling or flowing or carried into the stream," they shall not be deemed to have committed an offence, but before anyone can start proceedings, (a sanitary authority can start proceedings under the Act of 1876, and by the Third Schedule of this Bill, that authority will now be taken by these boards), they have to go, under the Act of 1876, to the Local 281 Government Board. Now they will have to go to the Ministry of Health. The Ministry inquire whether there is a case likely to be upheld by the Court before the matter can go to the Court at all. Then the Court, quite properly I think, proceeds to appoint assessors to advise it on matters of practical procedure. The whole procedure is so cumbrous that I am told that in the nine years preceding the last war only twenty-five applications were made to the Ministry for permission to institute proceedings; and of these only fourteen were granted.
As a result of this cumbrous legal procedure, our waterways, rivers and streams are polluted to a far greater extent than they ought to be, and to a far greater extent than most of us like to see. I am now suggesting by this Amendment that we delete that extra step in the proceedings whereby the boards that we are now setting up will have to go to the Ministry of Health for permission to start proceedings to prevent further pollution of any of our streams or rivers. It is a short and simple Amendment. It does not, I agree, do all that is needed. If the noble Earl tells me there is a fairly early prospect of the Minister doing something about the whole of these provisions as to river pollution, and that he therefore does not want to deal with the matter step by step at this time, it may be a very good reason why we should not carry this Amendment. On the other hand, if nothing is to be done within a reasonable time, then I shall press now that this extra step of getting consent—which I submit is quite unnecessary—shall be removed. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 24, at end insert? the said words.—(Lord, Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF PERTHMy Lords, we had a long discussion on this point with reference to Clause 4 when the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, moved an Amendment of a similar character to that now moved by Lord Llewellin. That Amendment, it is true, was in a different form. This one is being moved in the Annexe, but that does not really make any difference. I would remind the noble Earl that when he replied to the debate on Clause 4 he said that he could not accept the Amendment although he had great sympathy with the underlying idea. The Amendment, he said, was against the general principles of the Bill.
282 He further said that under the Bill the Government were trying to set up river boards and to transfer existing powers as they are; not to give new powers. That could have been, or might have been, a very strong argument, but I think the noble Earl will agree that in the Amendment which he himself moved he has given additional powers to the Thames Conservancy Board.
All we ask is that now that these additional powers have been given to the Thames Conservancy Board, powers which at present exist, and which the Thames Conservancy Board has, shall be transferred to river boards. This is exactly parallel with what he has already done himself. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Earl can rely further on that argument of principle. We feel strongly about this question of pollution. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said that if steps are likely to be taken in the near future he will not press the Amendment. We know there is a sub-committee considering this, and we know that they have been considering it for a longish time. The noble Earl, I feel sure, cannot tell us when that sub-committee are going to report and when legislation can be introduced after that Report has been received. Meanwhile, this pollution is continuing. I do not know what view the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, takes, but I think every angling association will agree with this with respect to any river where pollution is continuing. I earnestly submit that an Amendment of this kind might be accepted, because it would give some additional power to the river boards to check pollution. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, this reaches the very heart of the Bill, as was said during the debate in the Committee stage. I have a lively recollection of the debates in the Committee stage. I have not looked up the report of the proceedings, but I looked anxiously through the Marshalled List of Amendments this morning to see if my noble friend had been able to meet us on this. Clearly, he has not, but I did think he held out some hopes. With regard to the committee or sub-committee which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, described, may I ask my noble friend exactly what is this committee—when it was appointed and whether he has any information about it 283 that he can give to your Lordships? When is it expected to report? I should have thought it would be safer to have this Amendment in the Bill. During the Committee stage—my noble friend I am sure will agree with me here—the arguments were so strongly in favour of this amendment to the Act of 1876 that if there had been a Division at that time—of course my noble friend would have had my support against my conscience and better feelings—without a doubt this Amendment would have been carried.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThat undertaking somewhat discounts the value of the noble Lord's speeches.
LORD STRABOLGIDo not be so sure. The noble Viscount jumps to conclusions. I am referring to my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon; but he is not the only Minister in the Government.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI thought the undertaking was general and not particular.
LORD STRABOLGII do ask my noble friend to see whether he cannot do something about this on the Third Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that people who are concerned with the purity of our rivers know quite well that this provision hampers prosecutions where known and proven cases of pollution occur. It causes added delay and added expense, and it gives an opportunity for the evil to continue while the Ministry, quite properly, are carefully considering the application. I do add my appeal to that of noble Lords opposite to do away with this out-of-date provision.
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONMy Lords, again I have the unenviable task of arguing on a subject with which I have great sympathy, because I think all of us must agree that pollution is a great problem which must be tackled, and tackled energetically, as soon as it can reasonably be done. I feel there is no difference of opinion between any of us on this subject. I should like to point out to noble Lords that this Government have a programme and are intending to do something about this matter. In fact, it is the first time since 1876 that legislation is in view; and this Bill is the first step to that future legislation.
284 I should like first to answer two remarks. One was made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he asked me whether the boards could have the powers of the Thames Conservancy Board. It is quite true that the Thames Conservancy have particular powers which would be of use, but one must remember that the Thames is rather exceptional, by reason of the fact that there is no really heavy industry upon it, as there is, for instance, on rivers like the Tyne. The problem there is a very different one and is of tremendous importance compared with the relatively simple problem which faces the Thames. These are days, of course, when the export drive and other considerations affect industry generally. Shortage of materials and difficulties come into the picture with rivers like the Tyne whereas they do not with the Thames. That is not really the basis upon which I am going to make my argument, but it answers the different points which have been raised.
I would like to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in the Committee stage and now. It was that, before the war, out of twenty-eight applications only fourteen consents to prosecute were given by the Minister. There is another part of that story. In the other cases the consents would have been largely superfluous, because action was taken by the Minister which made prosecution unnecessary. I am not using that in itself as an argument, but should like merely to point out that there is a subsidiary point which so far has not been mentioned. In the first place when the Milne Committee reported they said that the problem of combating pollution—referring to pollution generally—was not so much lack of power as the lack of a responsible board to carry out any action. They said that new powers were better deferred until the new boards had accustomed themselves to working under the existing laws. I think that goes too far, but that was the recommendation of the Milne Committee. The real point is this. If this Amendment were put in the Bill it would have no serious effect for some years, because it would have effect only when the river boards had actually come into operation on the appointed day. It is not an immediate cure for pollution to-morrow or the next day.
The Government are not looking for an Amendment which can be inserted to 285 check pollution; they are instead considering the whole issue of major legislation which must inevitably come if we are to deal with the problem. The real case against inserting this Amendment here—and I hope the noble Lord is with me in this—is that the whole matter is now being considered by the sub-committee of the Central Water Committee. They are taking evidence, and are compiling a Report. I cannot say when they will deliver it, although we hope it will be fairly soon. I suggest that it would be unwise and inexpedient if noble Lords were to press the Government to anticipate major legislation to deal with this problem, while a Report is at present being considered to advise them as to what legislation will be needed.
However, I can give this hope to the House. If it should happen that this Report, when it comes, recommends new legislation on a considerable scale, His Majesty's Government may well be able to find time for a new Bill before the boards are finally working. I hope that I have made the two points perfectly clear. First of all, we are completely in sympathy with the desire to stop pollution, and, secondly, we shall have to resist this Amendment, because we cannot anticipate major legislation in this Bill while a Committee are considering the whole subject.
LORD STRABOLGIBefore the noble Earl leaves this matter, can he tell us whether he expects the Report of this subcommittee to be published? Is it usual to publish these Reports?
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONI would like to have notice of that, but I think that is so. I can state that it would be published.
§ LORD LLEWELLINMay I congratulate the Under-Secretary upon his tic-tac methods with the box? At the same time, I am not completely satisfied with the answer that he has given—not on that particular point but on his general reply. I do not think this is major legislation, and that is where I would part company with the noble Earl. We would alter this old Act of 1876 in one particular, cutting out merely the necessity to seek this extra consent of the Minister, 286 which takes further time. I was not impressed, if I may say so, with the assurance which the noble Earl gave—it was an extremely carefully worded assurance—that when the sub-committee of the Central Water Committee has reported and the Central Committee has reported to the Ministry, the Government may well be able to find time to bring in a Bill before the boards are set up. "It may well be able to find time" is not much of an assurance that we are going to get the Bill before the boards are set up. On the other hand I think there is a real intention on the part of the Government to bring in legislation on this matter at some time, and I would urge that it be done as quickly as possible. The report of the sub-committee should be expedited so that action may be taken and we may get this ancient legislation brought up to date at the earliest possible moment. Although I did not call it major legislation, I can well see the argument that you do not want to legislate at all on this matter until you do it as a complete whole. I did not call it major legislation and I myself would rather have described it as not wishing to tinker with something that eventually would need major legislation I quite see the force of that argument and I accept it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF PERTHMy Lords, as the noble Lord intends to withdraw his Amendment, I do not want to press him to do anything else, but the noble Earl, if I may say so, has actually shifted his argument from the one he used in Committee stage. Then he relied on the question of principle; now he relies on the fact that we are going to deal with this question at an early date. As. I understand his assurance, it is that the Government hope to bring in legislation to deal with pollution before the appointed day when the boards are constituted. If that is so, it is a very satisfactory assurance, and I would, therefore, not ask the noble Lord to press his Amendment. But will the noble Earl do one thing—will he do anything he can to expedite the report of this sub-committee, so that action may be taken?
§ THE EARL OF HUNTINGDONPersonally, I shall be very pleased to do that.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.