HL Deb 24 July 1951 vol 172 cc1188-208

4.45 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.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Duty of Secretary of State in relation to prevention of pollution of rivers and other waters]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to the clause: (4) The Scottish River Pollution Advisory Committee shall make an annual report to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State will lay such report before each House of Parliament.

The noble Earl said: The point to which I should like to draw attention is that throughout this Bill there is practically no provision for publication of what, in fact, is done by the river purification boards set up under the Bill. I draw attention to this point again later. In this Amendment I am drawing attention to the possibility of some information being made available from the advisory authority which is going to be set up to assist the Secretary of State. I have suggested here that they should make an annual report. To be frank, I do not stand on that for a moment. I am not greatly concerned whether the report is annual. What I am concerned about is that we should know, to some extent, how far the purposes and intentions of this Bill are to be carried out. I do not very much mind whether that is done under the central advisory committee, or whether the noble Lord prefers that it should be done subsequently by each river board under Clause 16, which I will discuss later. I feel that it is of great importance that, in a Bill of this sort, the purpose of which is intended to be of interest to a wide circle of people, and the success of which will depend to a great degree on the interest taken in it, adequate publication of its intentions and progress should be made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I am in agreement with the noble Earl in saying that the success of this Bill will largely depend upon the interest which the public take in it. Therefore, it is necessary to find some way in which the public can be kept advised of the work of the river purification boards, and of what is being done. I am unable to make any definite promise now, but I will offer the noble Earl an assurance that, before the Report stage, the Government will consider putting down an Amendment, under which the Secretary of State will be under an obligation to lay before Parliament such reports of the Scottish river purification advisory committee as he may desire to publish. I hope that in the light of that undertaking the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion he has made; it substantially meets the point I have in mind. At present, as I say, there is no provision in this Bill for publication of any report whatever. It is for that reason that I feel his suggestion is a valuable one. I will not press the Amendment further, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Establishment of river purification boards]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (1) after "river" to insert "purification." The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission I should like to move this Amendment differently. What I intended to move was the omission of the word "purification" from the name of the board, but, owing to a clerical error, the Amendment on the Marshalled List is to "insert" the word "purification."

I have two objections to this word. One is that it is very clumsy. "Purification" is a five-syllable noun, used in the position of an adjective. Secondly, it seems to me that in these ad hoc boards which are being set up we are setting up probably the most important organisation dealing with rivers throughout their length. In England—and we are always glad to learn from England—they already have river boards covering substantially all the functions which are covered in Scotland by different boards; that is to say, drainage, fishery, preservation and river purification. I recognise that, at the present time, with the boards set up by this Bill there are limitations much narrower than exist in the English river boards; and I recognise that at the present time they cover only a small portion of the work that is carried out by similar boards in England. I suggest, however, that the work which they are carrying out will be the most important work done on those rivers, and I suggest that it would be more dignified and simpler to delete from the title of these boards the word "purification." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 16, after ("river") leave out ("purification").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I noted that there was a misprint, and that the noble Earl meant to delete and not to insert the word. His objection appears to be that the phrase "river purification boards" is cumbersome. As against that, he goes on to say that it is an important board. I thought that his second point rather destroyed the value of the first. These boards will be important boards and, therefore, I think it is as well to make it perfectly clear to everybody why these boards have been set up. To call them river boards might associate them with a variety of subjects, but these boards have been set up for a specific purpose—the purification of rivers. It seems to me just as well that we should so describe them that everybody who comes in touch in any way with the river purification boards will know that their object is to endeavour to assist purification. This Bill is not a Bill dealing with all the aspects of river administration, such as fisheries, drainage, navigation and pollution. If it were, that would merit the title "river board," and that is why that expression has been used in the English Bill. May I add that this point was very much in mind at the drafting stage, and that the title "river purification board" was chosen deliberately, because it indicates something definite and positive in its implication—that the boards exist for the object of purifying the rivers? In those circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

If the noble Lord is satisfied with regard to the word "purification" I will leave the matter there. I am saying only that the term does not endear itself to me very much. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Definition of river purification board areas and establishment of river purification boards]:

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SALTOUN

I have something of some moment to suggest to the Government on this clause. The noble Lord did not sound very sanguine on Second Reading as to the success of this Bill in purifying the rivers of Scotland, and from what he has just said on Clause 2 I realise that one of the objects is to set up river purification boards to act as whipping boys in the event of the ill-success of the Bill. I was asked by various societies which deal with the purification of rivers in Scotland to give evidence before the Broun Lindsay Committee on this subject—which was rather a compliment because I am not an expert. I was associated with some of the greatest experts in Scotland on this question, and we were unanimous on one point: that the real powers under the Bill must be committed to separate committees and not given to the county councils. The Broun Lindsay Committee answered quite frankly. They said that they were quite determined, whatever happened, that the power should remain with the county councils; and the institution of the river boards to some extent acknowledges that, because, as your Lordships see, they have at least two-thirds of the representation on the river purification boards.

But the matter does not stop there. If your Lordships look at subsection (4), you see these words: In the selection of members to be appointed by them, the council of a county shall have regard to the relative rateable valuations of the small burghs and of the landward area of the county respectively … For the benefit of those noble Lords who do not live North of the Border, I will explain that the social distribution in Scotland is rather different from that in England. There are practically no real villages in Scotland, and a county is made up of the landward area and what are small townships and burghs; and these have special representation in the county council. As your Lordships know, agricultural land is de-rated, and the consequence of that is that the weight of rateable value must lie with the burghs in the county. But it is precisely the burghs in the county who are the polluters. I go further than that, because the burghs, in practice, pool their interests and, therefore, in every county council they wield a very powerful force. By putting in these words in subsection (4), the Government are going a long way to stultify the Bill. I get rather tired of our passing Bills in this House which have wonderful Titles, and purport to work wonderful reforms and improvements in the country, in the knowledge that they are going to be quite ineffective. I ask the Government between now and the next stage to consider seriously these words, with a view to amending them, because I know that they want this Bill to be effective if it can possibly be made effective. I can assure them that, so far as my humble opinion goes, these words will go a long way to make it completely ineffective.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 11 agreed to.

5.0 p.m.

Clause 12:

(3) If any such local water authority as aforesaid is aggrieved by the refusal of a river purification board to delegate to them any functions under the last foregoing subsection or if any question arises as to the functions to be delegated or the terms and conditions on which functions are to be relegated, they may refer the matter to the Secretary of State for determination, and it shall be the duty of the Board to give effect to any such determination.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved a Manuscript Amendment, in subsection (3), after "aforesaid" to insert: or the council of any county in whose area there is in operation a river purification board. The noble Earl said: I raised this matter tentatively on Second Reading. It has particular reference to certain representations which have been made to the Fife County Council in regard to the River Leven though, of course, it may have a wider influence than that. Under subsection (1) of Clause 12, authority is given for delegating powers from the river purification boards to the council of any county or burgh: whose district is comprised wholly or partly in the river purification board area to act as the agents of the river purification board … The Fife country Council have been responsible for work on the Leven river for some time, and they are willing and anxious to carry on that work. They consider that it is desirable that where possible local authorities should continue their work; and they would like to make it clear that in the scheme which is submitted to the Secretary of State their views can be considered in regard to the part which they could play in this mechanism. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will give careful consideration to it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 6, after ("aforesaid") insert ("or the council of any county in whose area there is in operation a river purification board").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

I have some personal interest in the activities of the Fife County Council and I wish to support this Amendment. In 1949, the County Council promoted a Private Bill which received the Royal Assent and which gave authority, among other things, for the setting up of the River Leven Board. That Board was constituted for the very purposes which are outlined and described in the Bill—the purification of the River Leven. As indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, a good deal of progress has been made by the River Leven Board, under the leadership of the County Council, towards purification work; and I venture to suggest that it would be wise to leave that work in the hands of those who have undertaken it rather than change the authority.

LORD MORRISON

It is a little unfortunate, although it is nobody's fault, that this question, which was the most important arising out of this Bill in another place, should have been left to be discussed on a Manuscript Amendment at the last minute. I am not casting any blame on anyone for that. The noble Earl and I were agreed, in the short Second Reading debate, that this was the only question which was voted upon in another place; no other vote took place. It was a free vote; the Whips were not on; and the vote was thirty-three for the clause as it stands now, and six against. I thought a serious effort would perhaps have been made to put forward that position, but the noble Earl has now submitted his Manuscript Amendment in a modified form.

I have not had time to go into it fully, but as I understood the speech of Lord Selkirk and that of the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, the Fife County Council now want power to be given to the Secretary of State to require the river purification board to appoint the County Council as their agent—I think that is the essential point. I know that such a concession has already been made in the case of a local authority interested in a certain river—I think it was the Aberdeen Town Council—because they draw their domestic water supply from the River Dee. But, clearly, the river purification authority would not be qualified to deal with the public health interest of the suitability of the water for drinking purposes. Frankly, I see no reason for extending this concession to the Fife case, where the question of potability does not arise. In fact, I think that the river purification authority should be left to exercise their discretion in the matter of appointing agents. I should rather see it left to them than put into a Bill with Fife as a specific instance.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the consideration he has given to the matter. I must admit that the fact that this is a Manuscript Amendment is entirely my fault; it is a fault of omission and I accept full responsibility for it. With regard to the discretion to which the noble Lord referred, I think it is fair to say that discretion still exists in the river purification board to appoint agents as they like, but that discretion cannot include by-law-making power or the granting of permission or of exemptions. With that exception it is quite open to a river purification board to employ a local authority in any capacity they like. I am, as I say, grateful to the noble Lord; possibly we can discuss this matter in the near future. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Reports

16.—(1) Every river purification board shall, before such date in every year as the Secretary of State may fix, send to the Secretary of State a report in respect of the preceding year, and shall at the same time send a copy of the report to the council of every county or large burgh whose district is comprised wholly or partly in the river purification board area.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

moved to add to subsection (1) "The Secretary of State shall lay copies of each report before each House of Parliament." The noble Earl said: This is the clause to which I referred when speaking on the first Amendment with regard to the publication of reports of the work of the river purification boards. In Clause 16 it is laid down that river purification boards shall make a retort to the Secretary of State and shall send that report to the council of every county or borough whose district is comprised wholly or partly in the river purification board area. That is all very well, but it means that no single member of the general public will ever see a report from any of the boards. I admit that the reports of local authorities have some semi-publicity value, if I may so call it: something is bound to come out in the newspapers, but such reports in the papers do not always give the whole truth. I should have thought that it was desirable that the report should be available to interested members of the public, instead of being left to be reported in the newspapers, which, as I say do not always give the whole story.

I suggest in this Amendment that copies should be laid before each House of Parliament. I do not want particularly to stand on that procedure, though it was laid down in the English Bill. I am not sure it is desirable that a large number of comparatively small reports should be laid before Parliament. What I do emphasise, however, is that people interested in the locality should get a fair idea of what is really happening. I think it is essential, if the benefits of this Bill are to be widely appreciated, that the public should have reasonable facilities for knowing what progress is being made in river purification. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 9, at end insert ("The Secretary of State shall lay copies of each report before each House of Parliament ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

I think there is no doubt that the noble Lord has made out a strong case and one which, so far as I am concerned, is unanswerable. But I do not think he is altogether satisfied with the wording of his own Amendment, and I promise him that at the Report stage an Amendment will be moved. If the noble Earl so desires, I will submit suggestions for an Amendment to him. He can put it down in his name or it can go down in mine—I do not mind—but an Amendment will be moved to make copies of the annual reports of river purification boards available to the public. I am not able to go any further as to the wording of that Amendment, but in general I rather gather from the noble Earl's speech that that is what he wants. We will attempt to accomplish it before Report stage.

LORD SALTOUN

I think these reports ought to be available to Parliament because we may have to deal with them.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am fully satisfied with what has been said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17:

River purification authorities.

17.—(1) It shall be the duty of the authorities specified in the next following sub section (in this Act referred to as "river purification authorities") to promote the cleanliness of the rivers and other inland waters and the tidal waters in their areas, to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of their areas and to exercise for those purposes the functions conferred on them by this Act.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "so far as practicable" The noble Lord said: I submit that, if this Bill is intended to purify the rivers of Scotland, it should be the duty of the authorities to conserve the water resources. I agree that to conserve "so far as practicable" the water resources means much the same thing. The only difference is that "so far as practicable" is an utterly defeatist phrase, which I think should be deleted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 20, leave out ("so far as practicable").—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is determined that this shall be a good Bill. So am I. But I cannot understand why he has struck a vein of pessimism over this. This Bill being admitted by everybody to be a non-Party Bill, having gone through all its stages in another plate and now going through this House on strictly non-Party lines, why anybody should be pessimistic over it, just because it has gone through without any of the usual altercations and "bladder and stick" kind of speeches that we are more accustomed to having in another place than here, I do not know. I should have thought that the fact that there was this unanimity would have been helpful. Now the noble Lord has moved a Manuscript Amendment to omit the words "so far as practicable." I can only reply that my advisers say that it is essential to retain those words, as the river purification authorities will not be wholly responsible for conserving water resources; other people will be involved, besides them. They will be expected to assist in this only "so far as practicable." In those circumstances, I am unable to accept this Amendment, while realising how helpful the noble Lord always wants to be in his desire to strengthen the Bill.

LORD SALTOUN

I do not agree that non-Party Bills are necessarily better or more perfect than Party Bills. Party Bills at any rate emanate from a definite and consistent policy, or ought to, whereas we are apt to pay too little attention to non-Party Bills and let things go through that should be checked and corrected. I do not intend to press my Amendment. I am obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation of the meaning of the words. All the same, I do not like them. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.

5.13 p.m.

Clause 22:

Prohibition on use of stream for disposal of polluting matter, etc.

(3) Where no byelaw made under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section twenty-five of this Act is in force as respects any stream or part of a stream prescribing a standard for the purpose of determining when matter is in any particular respect to be treated as poisonous, noxious or polluting, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section in respect of the discharge into that stream or part of matter which is poisonous, noxious or polluting in that respect to prove that—

  1. (a) it is not reasonably practicable for him to dispose of the matter otherwise than by discharging it (directly or indirectly) into that or some other stream; and
  2. (b) he is taking all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the matter being unnecessarily poisonous, noxious or polluting.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3) (a) to leave out "reasonably." The noble Lord said: There is a good deal more substance in this Amendment. For these last Seventy-five years, every river purification Bill has broken down on this word "reasonably." The noble Lord accuses me of pessimism. I have given him one reason why I am pessimistic about the Bill, and this word "reasonably" is another. I will tell your Lordships why: it is because it removes from manufacturers the onus of finding a process which gives a pure, or at least a harmless, effluent. It relieves them of the responsibility, which I maintain should be upon them, of research, because if a man makes money—I do not care whether it is a nationalised industry in which he is making money for the State—by manufacturing something, he should be hound to do his work in such a way that it does not harm the community. I submit that, if you leave these paragraphs to read that (a) …it is not practicable for him to dispose of the matter otherwise. … and (b) he is taking all practicable steps. … there is no need to reinforce the polluter by putting in the word "reasonably." That means that he could do it, but that it would be onerous or unpleasant. I submit that there are strong grounds for my pessimism if Clause 3 remains unaltered, and if in Clause 22 we retain this objectionable word which has been the shield and rampart of the defiler of rivers for seventy-five years. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 37, leave out ("reasonably").—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD MORRISON

Here, again, we come to the point whether it is "reasonably practicable." I am not sure whether, in the present state of knowledge, some rivers can be purified at reasonable expense. If there were an absolute prohibition on the discharge of such effluents, the manufacturers would be put out of business altogether. I do not know whether the noble Lord has faced up to the fact that, if we were to delete that word, we should simply be imposing a sentence of death on many very important businesses in Scotland. Moreover, the Bill as it stands tells people who are responsible for these industries with noxious effluents that, provided the river boards are satisfied that they are doing their best and trying their utmost to purify their rivers, such efforts will be a reason why they shall be allowed to carry on their industry. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, it would not matter whether it was reasonable or not—they could be closed down altogether and prohibited. This clause provides that they have good defence if they do their best. It will be a defence if they prove that they are doing their best. Finally, I would remind the noble Lord that research is going on all the time into new methods of purification. Therefore, the object of the river purification boards ought to be to encourage industrialists who are doing their best to get better results to take advantage of the latest discoveries of research in the prevention of pollution, rather than to throw up their hands and close down their works altogether. I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I am sorry to say that I thought the noble Lord's speech was entirely on my side. He says that "doing your best" is covered by the word "practicable," but when you put in "reasonably practicable" you are approaching a man's pocket. The man says "That is unreasonable: it will cost me five pounds"—or whatever the cost may be. I am not quite satisfied, and, while it is impossible to divide the House to-night on this stage of the Bill, I shall put down an Amendment on the next stage when I hope that we shall have an opportunity of really going into this matter. I know that the noble Lord is just as keen on this as I am, and I would beg him to examine the Amendment very carefully before the next stage. I hope he will examine Clause 3, too. Then we will see whether we cannot come to a happier conclusion about it.

LORD MORRISON

I have had only a few moments to look at this Manuscript Amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that if he puts it down I will look at it again, but I cannot hold out any greater hope for success.

LORD SALTOUN

I am obliged.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 21, leave out ("general").—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the difference between a manager and a general manager.

LORD MORRISON

I do not think there is any difference; that is why we are leaving out the word" general."

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I ask why the noble Lord is proposing an Amendment at all, if it makes no difference?

LORD MORRISON

To save one word.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Cleansing bed of stream, cutting vegetation, etc.]:

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment to bring the wording into line with that in Clause 22 (6) (c). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 45, after ("the") insert ("natural").—(Lord Morrison).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges]:

LORD MORRISON

This is really a clarifying Amendment. As it stands, Clause 28 (2) (b) does not make it clear whether the conditions that a river purification authority may impose in the case of new discharges shall relate only to that discharge or may also relate to other existing discharges from the premises. The Amendment makes it clear that these other discharges may also be controlled. The reason for this is that a new discharge may possibly react on existing discharges, with consequent deleterious effects upon he stream. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 12, leave out the first ("the").—(Lords Morrison).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 22, leave out ("for") and insert ("of").—(Lord Morrison).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This next Amendment should be read along with the two following Amendments. Clause 28, as it stands, provides for a review of conditions imposed when consent is given to the bringing into use of a new or altered outlet, or the beginning of a new discharge. However, the clause does not provide machinery for reviewing unconditional consents given under the clause or consents deemed to have been given unconditionally, or any consent given under Paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the Bill. The effect of these three Amendments is to enable the river purification authority to review such consents and, if necessary, to impose reasonable conditions subject to which the new outlet or discharge in question will continue to be made. They also empower the Secretary of State to direct the authority to make such a review or to impose such conditions, or in their default, to do so himself. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 31, after ("made)") insert ("or any consent granted or deemed to have been granted unconditionally under this section or under Paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule to this Act").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is the first of the Amendments to which I have just referred. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 34, after ("condition") insert ("or imposing any such condition (other than a condition to be satisfied as aforesaid) as they might have imposed under this section").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

I beg to move the second of these Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 36, after ("condition") insert ("or to impose any condition which might have been imposed as aforesaid").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

Here again, this Amendment should be read along with the following Amendment. These two Amendments are drafting Amendments which have been introduced into the Bill at the suggestion of the Federation of British Industries, to clarify still further the definition of the term "new discharge." The Amendments secure that a new discharge must be substantially something more than a mere continuation or a repetition of a previous discharge made in the preceding twelve months. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 28, after the first ("a") insert ("repetition or").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 31, after the second ("a") insert ("repetition or").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON moved, after subsection (10) to insert: ( ) If, on an application to the Secretary of State for him to determine a question under the last foregoing subsection, he determines that the withholding of consent, or the condition imposed, or the variation of a condition, as the case may be, was unreasonable, then—

  1. (a) where the application was in respect of the withholding of consent, he may direct that the consent shall be treated as given either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as appear to him to be reasonable;
  2. (b) where the application was in respect of the unreasonableness of any condition imposed, he may direct either that the condition shall be treated as annulled or that there shall be substituted for it such condition as appears to him to be reasonable;
  3. (c) where the application was in respect of the reasonableness of any variation of a condition, he may direct either that the condition shall be treated as continuing in force unvaried or that it shall be varied in such manner as appears to him to be reasonable;
but, as respects the period before the giving of the direction, this section shall apply as if the withholding of consent, or the condition imposed, or the variation of a condition, as the case may be, had not been unreasonable. ( ) If a river purification authority fail, within three months of the making to them of an application for their consent under this section, to give the person proposing to bring into use the new or altered outlet or to begin to make the new discharge, as the case may be, notice that they give or refuse their consent the consent shall be deemed to be granted unconditionally at the expiration of those three months.

The noble Lord said: This rather long Amendment proposes to add two new subsections to the clause. As regards the first new subsection, Clause 28 as it stands allows the Secretary of State, when any question is referred to him as to whether consent under the clause has been unreasonably withheld, or as to the reasonableness of any condition or of any variation of such condition, to say only either "Yes" or "No." The new subsection will allow the Secretary of State to give an unconditional consent, or a consent qualified in the same way as the river purification authority might have done in the first instance, The second new subsection sets a time limit of three months within which the river purification authority may give or withhold their consent. Some such provision is necessary to ensure that the applicant is not held up for all time by the fact that, since the authority had never come to a decision, no appeal would ever lie to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 47, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

As I understand it, these new subsections are intended to provide more flexibility to the powers given the Secretary of State—that is to say, he is not obliged to accept the point of view either of the river board or of the applicant, but may compromise. I would ask the noble Lord to look again at the powers of the Secretary of State. He may impose such conditions as appear to him to be reasonable; but they may be entirely different conditions from those which the river board have considered or which, indeed, may be under discussion. It seems to me that the Secretary of State is given, not only power to compromise between two points of view but, possibly, to come to a decision right outside either point of view. I am putting that to the noble Lord in order that he may consider whether, as it is drawn, this Amendment is not perhaps a trifle too wide. I am not going to press the point now, because I understand that the intention is to introduce as great a measure of flexibility as possible. With regard to the second new subsection, I offer the noble Lord my warm congratulations. I think that any persons who do not answer a letter within three months deserve to have it assumed that their answer is to the effect that they have no comment to make whatsoever.

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl is right in saying that the intention of the first new subsection is to make the Bill a little more flexible than it would otherwise have been. With regard to the point about which he is not certain, I will look into it, and will let him know, between now and the Report stage, whether I am advised that any alteration is called for.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.

5.32 p.m.

LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 32, to insert the following new clause:

Supplementary Powers of Secretary of State

"For the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to perform any of his functions under this Act he or any person authorised by him shall have the like right to enter any land or vessel or to carry out any inspection or survey or to make copies of or extracts from any document or to obtain and take away samples as is conferred by this Act on a river purification authority or any person authorised by such an authority." The noble Lord said: Clauses 18, 19 and 20 of the Bill as it stands confer powers upon river purification authorities to obtain information, take samples and enter land for the purpose of enabling them to perform the functions imposed upon them by the Bill. No similar powers are at present conferred upon the Secretary of State or upon officers authorised by him. The Secretary of State, none the less, has, of may have, substantial functions to perform under the Bill. He may, for example, have to make by-laws in default of an authority; he may have to give directions to authorities as to whether they should review authorisations granted under Clause 27, or review conditions imposed under Clause 28. If, in such circumstances, he or his officers were unable to obtain the requisite information or take samples or obtain entry for those purposes, he would be unable to discharge these functions. This new clause, therefore, confers upon the Secretary of State the same Powers in regard to those matters as river purification authorities have under the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 32, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

This is a new clause produced now, as the noble Lord has very properly said, after this Bill has been considered in great detail in another place. I should like to know why it is necessary to insert this clause in this form. The noble Lord has said that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State may have to perform the duties of river purification authorities. This clause gives him power, as I see it, to perform those duties in any case. In other words, compulsory investigation may be carried out by the river boards and also by the Secretary of State. If I understood rightly what the noble Lord said, that is not the intention. I suggest, however, with respect, that as this is not the intention, it might be quite easy to insert words to show that this action would arise only in the event of the river boards failing in their duty. I think I am right in saying that one of the other clauses starts on that basis.

The particular matter in which I am interested, and which leads me to raise this point, is that of ships in harbour. I am sure the noble Lord will agree it is most important that there should be no undue delaying of shipping. Already there is a large number of people who are entitled to investigate ships—they are entitled to investigate them in connection with disinfestation, oil pollution, the prevention of fires and a number of other matters. I think we should hesitate before increasing the number of officials who are entitled to visit ships. I emphasise that point particularly, and I should like to suggest that the noble Lord should look at this clause again to make sure that it is not conferring an additional independent power, instead of one to act in substitution for river boards only in the event of their failing in their duty.

LORD MORRISON

I am willing to look at this again between now and the Report stage. I think the noble Earl will find that already the English Rivers Board Acts confer full powers upon the Minister in this respect. And the Minister's duty will be carried out as there may be occasion. There is no question of duplicating officials or anything of that sort. But, as I say, I will look at the clause again and inform the noble Earl of the result of my investigations.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Third Schedule.

TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.

2. Any person who, within one month after the date on which section twenty-eight of this Act comes into operation in any area, brings into use in that area any new or altered outlet for the discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream or begins to make in that area any new discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream shall be deemed for the purposes of the said section twenty-eight to do so with the consent of the river purification authority.

5.36 p.m.

LORD MORRISON

Under paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule as it stands, a person bringing a new outlet into use or making a new discharge within one month after the date of Clause 28 coming into operation in the area does not require to obtain the consent of the river purification authority. It is thought that a period of one month may, in practice, prove rather short. In any case, a period of three months is allowed to the river purification authority in which to make up their minds before granting or refusing consent, and a similar period is allowed for the intimation of objections to by-laws under Clause 26 (5). In the interest of uniformity, therefore, this Amendment extends the transitional period of one month to three months. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 44, leave out ("one month") and insert ("three months").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The substitution for the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951, made by paragraph 3 of the Bill is unnecessary, as this matter is already covered by the Interpretation Act, 1889. I, therefore, beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 1, leave out Paragraph 3.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 7, leave out ("21") and insert ("19").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 11, leave out ("approving an agreement").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment, too, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 12, leave out ("abstraction") and insert ("taking").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.