HL Deb 26 July 1951 vol 172 cc1327-35

3.43 p.m.

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, may I venture to say a word on the Motion that the Report be now received? We have now reached a stage in which the two Bills for England and Scotland are nearly complete; but as I see it, there is an omission from both Bills—the rivers which flow between England and Scotland are not provided for. I think that is a regrettable fact, and I am rising simply to ask the Government whether they have any statement to make on their proposals. The two rivers particularly concerned are, of course, the Esk and the Tweed. In the Broun Lindsay Report it was suggested broadly that the Tweed should be regarded as a Scottish river, and the Esk as an English river. I am not sure that that is a fair exchange, but that was the recommendation. The Report reads as follows, and I think it is worth remembering this, because it is not an unimportant point: We assume that with the adoption of the general principles that the whole of the river and its tributaries should be in one area of administration, it would be necessary to provide for joint action by the appropriate authorities in cases where a river or tributary of a river is partly in England and partly in Scotland. The present machinery for joint action in such cases is the River Pollution Prevention Border Counties Act, 1898. This is rather a cumbersome Act, has never been put into operation and should be simplified. In point of fact, that Act is repealed by the Bill now under consideration, and nothing is put in its place. I am sure we must all agree that these rivers are better dealt with by one board through the whole of their length, and it seems a pity that, for one reason or another, it has not been possible to include such a provision in this Bill. I raised this point on the Second Reading, but it was only during the Committee stage that I realised that there was no possibility of getting anything of this nature included.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for giving me an opportunity of making a brief statement on the position in regard to these two rivers, both of which flow in Scotland and in England. When the Bill was in another place it was hoped to introduce, after the purely Scottish stage of the Bill had been passed, a Border river clause providing, in respect of the Rivers Tweed and Esk, for co-ordination of action between the Scottish river purification boards and the English river boards concerned. However, technical difficulties arose in another place, and it was not found possible to proceed as previously intended. The question of overcoming the difficulty of amending legislation in the form of a Border Rivers Bill is at present under the active consideration of the two Ministers concerned—the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Local Government and Planning. I hope the noble Earl will accept my assurance that an amending Bill will be introduced as soon as it is possible to do so.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his statement, which I am sure will be welcomed in all parts of the House. Perhaps the last elements of Border warfare will then terminate.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

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

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, this is a Government Amendment which is self-explanatory. The House will remember that on the Committee stage of the Bill I gave an undertaking to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to deal with this matter. This is the fulfilment of my undertaking. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 10, at end insert— (" (4) The secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any report made to him by the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee upon any matter which in his opinion is likely to be of general public interest.")—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord very warmly for this Amendment, which fully meets the point which I raised on Committee stage?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

Definition of river purification board areas and establishment of river purification boards

(4) 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 comprised in the river purification board area; and in making appointments under this section the councils of counties and large burghs shall not appoint ally officer or servant of the council or of any other local authority:

Provided that the council of a county or a large burgh shall not be precluded from appointing a member of the council who is also the officer or servant of another local authority.

3.48 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

moved, in subsection (4) to leave out all words from the beginning of the subsection down to "in making appointments." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the words I wish to delete are these: 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 comprised in the river purification board area. In moving this Amendment, I hope to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, why I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill. Suppose that a river board consists of thirty persons, of whom the Secretary of State appoints one-third and the county two-thirds. Under the words which I seek to delete, it may well be, that the burgh areas in the county appoint nineteen-twentieths of the remaining members, because, as the relative rateable valuations are the measure of the representation, the burgh areas are almost certain to have at least twenty times the rateable value of the landward areas which, as your Lordships know, are de-rated. There are some cases where that will not be the case, bit I put that proportion to an expert not very many minutes ago, and he did not dissent from it. In those circumstances, it certainly means putting into practice the principle that the people who will have to pay should have representation. But there is also this to consider: that the people who have the biggest rateable valuation are also the very people who do the most pollution—which means setting Satan to reprove sin with a vengeance.

If these words were not in the Bill the county council would appoint whom it liked—and most probably they would be the same people as if these words were in the Bill, But at least it would give the council a chance of making a different kind of appointment. As it is, with these words in the Bill I submit that you are cutting your own throats, and making quite certain that the Bill will not achieve the effect which its Title suggests. I know very well that these boards are only to give directions but the principle purpose of the representation of the burgh members on the county councils is to keep down the rates, so far as possible. These burghs attend to their own business with their owl finance, within the burgh, and one thing they do not want is to have a large county rate. It has been suggested to me that the people in the burgh will be so enthusiastic about the purification of the river running at their doors, that they will insist on their burgh councillors doing something to purify those rivers. In my experience that is not the kind of way in which electors act. On the contrary, they will be very anxious to prevent an increase in the rates—much more so than to have the river purified. It seems to me that, as more and more money will be spent on polluting rivers, more and more will then be spent on purifying them again. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, leave out from the beginning to ("in") in line 18.—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has put down this Amendment—not because I propose to accept it, but because I know how enthusiastic he is that this should be a good Bill. I hope the reasons I am about to give him will, perhaps, lead him to the conclusion that on balance the Bill as it stands is better than it would be if his Amendment were included. Under Clause 35 (2) of the Bill, as in effect the noble Lord said, a small burgh is: … deemed to be included in the county in the area of which it is situate. One effect of this provision will be that the amount of the requisition to be made by the river purification board on the county council in respect of their share of the board's expenses will be borne both by county ratepayers and by the ratepayers of the small burghs in the county. The point of difference between the noble Lord and myself is that he is prepared to agree that, if the small burghs were to be excluded from representation on the new river purification boards, the cardinal principle of "no taxation without representation" would be violated. The noble Lord argued that would make no difference—I think the words he used were, in effect, that people will be so enthusiastic that they will not bother about representation. With all due respect—the noble Lord's acquaintance with Scotland is closer than mine—I think that is most unlikely.

LORD SALTOUN

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I did not argue that at all. What I argued was that these words are a direction that they shall have proportionate representation. I suggest that these words be left out, and that the county council should be allowed to take their own line. It may be the same line, but, on the other hand, it may be different.

LORD MORRISON

Possibly the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that Clause 13 (d) of the Bill says that the disciplinary powers of the Secretary of State in respect of default of the local authority are applied to the Bill. If the fear is that, because of the presence on the river purification board of the representatives of small burghs, some of whom, no less than county councils and town councils of large burghs, are polluters, the river purification board will be inactive—that I think is the argument—then I would point out that under Clause 13 (c), the disciplinary powers of the Secretary of State in respect of the default of the local authority are applied to the Bill. Under these provisions, the Secretary of State may, after local inquiry, make an order declaring the river purification board to be in default; and, failing compliance with such an order, the Lord Advocate may make application to the Court of Session. So the noble Lord will see. I hope, that his fears are not well grounded. I hope that in these circumstances he may agree that, on balance, as I have said, the Bill is better as it stands.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot agree with what the noble Lord says. I will give him an example showing why. He will know that although the agricultural executive committees of Scotland have many times recommended to the Secretary of State that certain farmers should be relieved of their farms for bad agriculture, so far no action has been taken. However bad the rivers of Scotland become, I do not think the Secretary of State will take independent action. As for taxation without representation, the noble Lord and I are taxed—and very heavily—but are we represented? I am told that I cannot divide on this Amendment, and I am very sorry that I cannot. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 [Reports]:

LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause: (3) A river purification hoard shall cause a copy of every report made by them under this section to be open to public inspection at all reasonable hours without payment and shall on application furnish a copy thereof to any person on payment of such sum not exceeding one shilling for every copy as the board may determine.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment again, is self-explanatory. I gave an undertaking to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk in Committee, and I hope that he will feel this is a genuine attempt to meet the point raised. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, which meets fully the point I had in mind. I am sure that it is a marked improvement on the clause as it was drawn before.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33:

Supplementary powers of Secretary of State

33. 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 art authority.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to the clause: Provided that the right conferred by this section shall not be exercisable in relation to a vessel in any case where a river purification authority or any person authorised by such an authority is entitled to and is willing to exercise the like right in the performance of any functions of the authority under this Act.

The noble Earl said: This is a proviso to a new clause which was moved in the course of the Committee stage. I am moving this proviso primarily with the object of asking His Majesty's Government whether they can give an assurance on two points, As it stands, the new clause gives to the Secretary of State the right, in fulfilling his functions under this Bill, to enter on vessels and ships in tidal waters, certainly of the Forth and the Clyde, and eventually, probably, of all rivers or any river in Scotland.

The two points which I wish to raise are these. First, I hope that I am right in assuming that this will not mean a duplication of any investigation which may be carried out on behalf of the river boards. I want to be quite clear that that is not the case, and that the Secretary of State, if he feels inclined, will be able to carry out the investigation, although the river purification board are in fact, operating successfully. As the clause is drafted, it is not clear whether or not it gives wider powers than are really necessary. I should like to know whether I am correct in that, or whether the Secretary of State's functions come into operation only when the river boards have failed in their duty, in which event he takes over from them in certain respects. The other point is this. I understand that this clause is not intended in any way to be used for routine visits to vessels and ships; that it is intended only that visits should take place from time to time, when a survey is being made of the whole estuary or of the river as such—that is to say, that visits will be made only at considerable intervals and will certainly not be routine visits to be carried out every time a vessel comes into tidal waters in Scotland. If the noble Lord can satisfy me on those two points, I will withdraw the Amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I hope to make a brief statement to the noble Earl which will satisfy him on the points he has raised. I may add that I have been in consultation with the Law Officers of the Department for Scotland to make sure that I am on sound ground. The occasions on which the Secretary of State may require to exercise the powers of entry, inspection and sampling, conferred by the clause, are three: (1) making by-laws in default of the river purification authority; (2) reviewing, if necessary, relaxations from standards granted by the river purification authority under Clause 27; and (3) determining the conditions to lie imposed in respect of new outlets or new discharges under Clause 28. It is clear that the need to exercise, in relation to vessels, the power for the first and third of these purposes will seldom, if ever, arise. In the second case, however—that of reviewing, if necessary, relaxations from standards granted by the river purification authority under Clause 27—the Secretary of State may wish to review the relaxation from standards granted in respect of, say, a houseboat. In such a case it would administratively be an impossible situation if he had to rely on the information that the river purification authority, an interested party, were entitled and willing to obtain. Certainly, the occasions on which the power will be used in relation to vessels will be very rare, and there need be no fear that the clearance of a vessel will be delayed because of the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers. I hope that, in the light of that assurance, the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.