HL Deb 26 June 1951 vol 172 cc324-49

3.48 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 2.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (7), to omit all words after "section" and to insert: which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

The noble Viscount said: I am sure this is an Amendment which the Government will be delighted to accept. It is our old friend, the question of whether a director should be presumed to be guilty unless he proves himself innocent. In the Sea Fish Industry Act, which we discussed recently, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor accepted an Amendment providing that the onus of proof should rest upon the prosecution, and that Amendment was accepted in another place. I should have thought that the case for having the onus of proof on the prosecution was much stronger in this Bill than with the Sea Fish Industry Act, apart from the general principle that to have it otherwise is obviously wrong and contrary to all our practice.

Whether an offence has been committed must always be a disputable matter, except in the most obvious of cases. The Government themselves proposed, and we have just accepted, an Amendment making the "best practice" a defence where it is admitted that pollution has taken place. "Best practice" must be a highly technical question, and what is the best practice, and whether the best practice is being applied, must be the responsibility of those officers of the company who are engaged in the technical processes of the firm. In the case, say, of the Calico Printers or Bradford Dyers, with twenty or thirty factories all bordering on streams and all discharging into these streams, it is fantastic to suggest that the financial director or the sales director of the company should be presumed to be responsible for this extremely complex and technical question of whether the best practice is being used in the treatment of that effluent which is discharged. I do not think I need say more. If ever there was a case where the onus of proof ought to be on the prosecution and not upon the individual accused, this is one. I would add that this is not a situation where one should pursue an individual. It is not like an ordinary criminal offence, where some individual has been guilty of a breach of the law. This is essentially a case where the company as an entity has done something. It is absurd to say that the Lord Chancellor, if, unhappily, he should retire and become a director of one of the great companies, is committing a personal offence because the company of which he is a director discharges the effluent into the river. The remedy is to stop the company doing it, probably by an injunction, or perhaps by a fine. I believe that I have said enough to show that, if ever there was a case where the ordinary course of law should be pursued, this is one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("section") to end of line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Swinton)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I remember Lord Salisbury saying the other day that in this House we do not like to settle things by Divisions. I often think how true was Sydney Smith's statement, that minorities are almost always in the right perhaps because in this House I am always in the minority when we do have a Division. Therefore, I do not want to settle this by a Division. I make this proposition to your Lordships. I want you to listen to what I am going to say, and if, having done so, you remain of the opinion that we ought to put this the other way round (I suggest that we might leave it to the Report Stage) I shall be content to accept the sense of the House, and will not put it to a Division, which, after all, proves nothing. There is no Party question involved in this matter. I want your Lordships, however, to consider what I am about to say, because in my belief, having considered the matter, we ought to leave the clause as it now stands. The problem before us is this. Where you get a company which has been found guilty of an offence—that is the prerequisite of the whole thing—ought we or ought we not to say that a director can be found guilty only if you can bring home the complicity of that director in the particular offence, bearing in mind, as all of us who have knowledge of these matters know, that it is almost impossible to be aware of what goes on in the internal working of the company. The prosecution have not got access to the books, records, or anything of that sort. Ought we to say that when the company has been guilty of an offence the onus shall be on the director to show that he has not been guilty of any complicity in it.

First of all, let me look at this problem from the view of the ordinary man in ordinary life. It is a problem that greatly affects me personally. As your Lordships know, I have—and I think it is right that I should have—complete control of all the magistrates. If a magistrate is guilty of an offence which plainly involves some dishonest charge, then I remove him from the bench—and all your Lordships will agree that I must keep up the standard of the bench. If, on the other hand, it is a technical offence about which he knows nothing, obviously I do not remove him. My difficulty arises when I have a company, particularly a private company, convicted of an offence. I sometimes have a private company convicted of an offence which involves dishonesty, and one or two directors of the company are members of the bench. What line ought I to take? What line would any of your Lordships take in those circumstances? I venture to think that you would look at the facts of the case, and consider the nature of the company. If I may take an extreme case, it would be manifestly ridiculous to suggest that any director of a company like I.C.I., with its vast undertakings and ramifications, was guilty of an offence if the company were found guilty, even if it did involve dishonesty, of selling under weight, or what you will.

On the other hand, where you have a private company, which, to use the ordinary phrase, is a one-man company, what would you do? I should say that if I have plainly a one-man company, and that company is convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, and the director is on the bench, then, unless he can give me some explanation proving that he is in no way to blame, I should remove him from the bench. I believe that all your Lordships would take the same line. That is the common-sense point of view. It would apply to all your Lordships if you were considering whether you should vote for a man to be elected to your club, and the same problem arose. He might be the owner of a private company which has been found guilty of some discreditable or dishonourable conduct. You would probably say that you did not think he was a desirable person to be a member of the club. That I call the common-sense point of view, to which I believe all your Lordships would subscribe, and there is nothing subtle or legal about it.

What does the law say about this. The law has long drawn a distinction between important and unimportant matters. Where you are dealing with regulations which may involve danger to life and limb, the law for a long time past has said that, where the company is guilty, then the director also shall be guilty, unless he proves that he had nothing to do with it. An illustration of this is the Mines Acts, with all sorts of regulations on matters which may affect the lives of miners—there may be an explosion, or that sort of thing. There are also the Factories Acts dealing with such offences as not having machines properly fenced, whereby a man may lose his arm or leg. For a long time the law has been that if the company is guilty of such an offence, you can, if you are so minded—and, of course, you apply the rule with common sense—charge the director, and he has to show that he has not been guilty of any complicity.

The question is: What shall we do here? As I say, I am going to take your Lordships' decision, and I will not put it to a Division. I ask your Lordships to say that the state of our rivers in this country is an absolute disgrace. It is not that I am a fisherman, or look at it from that point of view. Frankly, I look at fish rather as one looks at the canary that is taken down in the submarine or the mine: the canary finds the foul air first, and falls off its perch; and then you know there is danger. To my mind, the fact that the fish are poisoned is an indication that there may be danger to humans, too. This is not a Party Bill, and all Parties are determined, if I may use the familiar expression, to put "teeth" into this Bill. For years past we have talked about cleaning up our rivers, but although we have high sounding phrases in Acts of Parliament, we all know that virtually nothing has been done about it. That is the fact. Now we want to do something about it. We want to make this a really effective Act. Nearly all the Amendments I have looked through in the Marshalled List are intended to strengthen and not to weaken the Bill. It is obvious that all your Lordships feel that there is a need to take steps to try to strengthen what we are doing about the rivers.

With regard to two of the methods we should adopt, let us look at the nature of the problem. As I see it, the pollution of rivers may be caused in one of two broad ways. First of all, there may be a defective system; secondly, there may be an act of carelessness: a workman opens the wrong valve or turns the wrong stopcock—I do not understand the technicalities. In that case, it is obvious that a director could deal with that very simply. He would say: "This man made a mistake. I am very sorry, but I knew nothing whatever about it. He is a good competent workman and I am in no way concerned." In practice, of course, no director in these circumstances would be charged. But where the system is wrong, why should you not hold the director to blame? If you want to get the system right, believe me, that is about the best thing you can do. Your Lordships are just as anxious as we are to make this thing real. I would ask your Lordships to reflect (and I hope that my words may be read), and if on the Report stage, notwithstanding what I have said, I am told that the sense of the House is in favour of the reversal which this Amendment asks, then I will consent. But it will not be my fault if this Bill is not as effective as it would otherwise have been.

Together with Lord Saltoun, I am a little apprehensive about the Amendment we have accepted allowing the defence of "best practice." I remember cases in the Chancery Division. I have often heard people say that things are impossible, but when the judge has said that these impossible things have to be done, they have been done. I have thought to myself that necessity is the mother of invention. But still we have the Bill in this form. We have accepted that, and that is the protection. If, notwithstanding that, the company is guilty of an offence, and if that offence is brought home to the company and the company is convicted, then I ask your Lordships to consider whether the right course would not be that the director of that company (who is not a mere guinea-pig but a person who should be taking an active part in the concerns of the company) should be guilty of an offence unless he shows that it was in no way his fault. If your Lordships follow what I am saying. I would ask you to put this Act in the category of the Mines or Factories or Dangerous Drugs Acts, in which we recognise that a failure to comply with the conditions of the Act may have serious consequences, and to decide that a man who has taken upon himself a responsibility, and is accepting the remuneration which quite properly falls to a director, ought to realise that pollution of rivers is a serious matter which he himself ought to look into. If you do that, I believe you would do a good deal to strengthen the observance of the rules.

I ask your Lordships, if I may—and I think your Lordships will probably agree, in view of the undertaking that I have given—not to press this matter to-day, on the understanding that if I gather from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, or from the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition that the sense of the House is against me and in favour of this Amendment, I shall not contest the matter further and will accept it. But if my advice is of any use to your Lordships—I do not say that it is, although it may be in a matter where there is no question of Party politics—I believe, having considered this matter carefully, that we should be doing a better job of work if we put this Act into the category of the Mines Act and other similar Acts. I say that because I believe it to be a matter of fundamental importance that we should clean up our rivers; and I believe that our best chance of so doing is to bring home to everybody concerned that if his company is guilty of an offence, then he will be presumed to be guilty of the offence unless he shows that he knew nothing about it and that it was not his fault.

I have tried to put fairly the question which your Lordships have to decide. When your Lordships have looked into it and have turned it over in your minds, if you remain of the opinion that this Amendment should be carried, then on the Report stage I will agree to it. I felt it my duty to tell your Lordships, quite frankly—and there is no Party question here at all—that, so far as I am concerned, I think you will be making a mistake if you treat this Bill as you would treat comparatively trivial and unimportant matters and make it compulsory for the prosecution to prove the complicity of a director, because, in practice, that is pretty well an impossible thing to do. You have to prosecute the company. That you can do: you can prove that its effluent has gone into the river. But to prove that any particular director was responsible, and knew anything about it, is almost impossible, unless you have access to the books and records of the company which, in the nature of things, you cannot have. Therefore, in practice, it means that the director is not responsible at all. I have said what I have to say. If your Lordships will do me the courtesy—as I am sure you will—of considering and weighing my words, and if, nevertheless, you tell me that you want this alteration made, then, on the Report stage, without troubling your Lordships to go to a Division, I will accept it.

4.7 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, may I say one word on this aspect of the Bill, not actually in answer but perhaps to add to the deliberation which the noble and learned Viscount has instituted? He has, if I may say so, and as we have all come to expect, put the position with great fairness. I do not doubt that my noble friend Lord Swinton will desire to consider it between now and the next stage. I recognise that there are certain cases in which it is long established that the onus of proof shifts in matters of particular kinds. At the same time, I confess that I have never liked those cases. I have a recollection of having said to your Lordships at a rather heated moment of discussion—on the Transport Bill, I think—in considering the onus of proof, that the onus of proof was a normal part of our law, and that it was a part of the law because it was right, and not right because it was part of the law. I think that that distinction holds good.

The noble and learned Viscount said that we ought to do this in order to make the Bill more effective. We all desire to make the Bill more effective, but we can make it more effective from what I may call the mechanical or administrative side at the cost of too high a price to be paid by the individual. It is asking a good deal to expect of a man who is a director of a company concerned that he should, in all cases, be required to prove his innocence of an offence under the Act. It might be an unlikely contingency, but it is not impossible and it would be permissible, under the Act, for steps to be taken to prosecute a man resident in London who was a director of, and attended board meetings of, a company whose actual work on the ground was carried out, say, in Cumberland. He might be a perfectly efficient director for the work that he had to do, but prosecution can be launched against him and it is then upon him—he having been a person charged with an offence—to free himself from the accusation which has been levelled against him. I must say that that seems to me a matter of very dubious justice. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, says it is impossible to prove affirmatively against a director, but I should have thought that in a case in which a director really was responsible it would not normally be an insuperable difficulty. I can also see difficulties arising in which a director, although he may be quite innocent, is called upon to prove that he had nothing to do with the commission of the particular offence.

It seems to me a much more complex case than the relatively simple one that the Lord Chancellor put to us at the beginning of his remarks, when he expounded the difficulty in dealing with the case of a company, one member of which was a magistrate who, if he were convicted of an offence might be—and, indeed, in normal circumstances would have to be—removed from the panel of magistrates. He also cited the case of a one-man company. I should have thought that in the case of a one-man company there would not be any difficulty in proving affirmatively against the one man concerned in that company, that if the company had committed an offence the inference was that he had some degree of direct responsibility for it. I think this is a matter which requires very careful consideration before the Report stage.

4.12 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

I think the best thing that has happened to me in Parliament for a long time is to have heard the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, describe the present situation regarding pollution as "critical". I hope I am not overstating him—the situation is indeed critical. When I was going into this matter in earlier years I became deeply conscious of the difficulty of proving pollution, because of the very large number of small firms whose discharge could not be properly checked. I formed the opinion that small firms discharging very small quantities of cyanides into domestic sewage did infinite harm to rivers. It is one of the most difficult problems of cleaning up any city, this problem of preventing the discharge of small quantities of industrial effluent down ordinary drains or into rivers which contain ordinary sewage. I consider it is a very important branch of this question.

If this House decides to accept the Bill as put before us by His Majesty's Government, it is important that the drastic nature of the clause should receive the utmost publicity. It is not by punishing this or that little man that we shall get the matter put right. It should be put to these small companies that they have a definite duty to prevent the contamination of our rivers and water-courses, and it is only by their realising that that this Bill can succeed. It is not, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, the Bill which I myself would have wished. I have already made suggestions for cleaning up rivers. But whatever method we adopt we must make it clear that the matter is, as I said at the beginning, a critical one. Even with our best efforts, perhaps for twenty years, we may leave the rivers only 10 per cent. less polluted than they are at present.

4.14 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I gladly accept the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that we should think about this matter and come to a common accord upon Report. As we are a small House and this is a matter in which I know many noble Lords are interested. I think it is well that we should have had rather a full discussion now, so that noble Lords who are not here to-day can read it and can consider the position and represent their views, either to the Lord Chancellor or to me, in the interval. Incidentally, I have an association with a river board and must therefore declare my interest. I am a President somewhere in the north. I am also a fisherman.

The one-man case has been mentioned. That is a simple case, because, obviously, the one man is the man who is responsible. The noble and learned Viscount took the case of the I.C.I. It would, of course, be absurd to say that the sales director of the I.C.I. is responsible for something going into the Tees. It may be said that prosecutions will be made sensibly. Well, I hope they will. Clause 8 of the Bill says that: … proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1)… shall not be instituted except by the Attorney-General or a river board. Subsection (2) of Clause 8 refers to certain cases where the consent of the Minister will be required. I gather that the position is that, once a survey is made and bylaws have been introduced, the bylaws will take account of past practice; but that then it rests with the river board itself to prosecute on its own responsibility for a breach of its bylaws. I still think that what is really wanted here is not so much a financial penalty or the committing of persons to prison—I cannot conceive, in any case, that magistrates are likely to send a London director to prison for something that has happened in some remote locality—as the stopping of the company from doing these things at all. Of course, once a company has transgressed it would be a very serious situation if it continued to do so.

I have just said that it would be unreasonable to prosecute a director except in the case of a one-man company, or, of course, unless the director is the man who happens to be on the spot, in which case I agree that he should be prosecuted because you could then prove that he was responsible. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor to consider this point: that in the case of a first offence the onus of proof should be left where it is. But, in any event, if I were a director of a company and an officer of the company had been convicted of some offence, I should expect that the matter would be brought up at the next board meeting; and I should expect the board to see that the necessary steps would be taken to ensure that such a situation did not arise again. I would suggest equally for con- sideration that for a first offence we might leave the onus of proof where it ordinarily rests, upon the prosecution, but that if a company has been convicted of an offence under the Act and is prosecuted again, on the second or subsequent occasions the directors and officers of the company should be held guilty unless they proved themselves innocent. That is my constructive contribution to the Lord Chancellor for consideration in the meantime. I hope all those who are interested in this matter will read the record of what has taken place to-day, and then I am sure we shall come to a wise conclusion the next time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will most gladly consider that suggestion, because we all want the same thing. My experience of Factories Act administration and, to a lesser extent, of the mines—although I know less about the mines—is this. I believe that the provision in those cases, which is the same provision that we have in this Bill, is valuable—not that there have been many prosecutions, but I believe the fact that there is the possibility of a prosecution is the very thing which keeps an individual on his toes and alert. If we want to get this Bill efficiently administered, it is worth including that provision. The suggestion put by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, is a new one. I had not thought of it. It may be that something can be done on those lines, or it may be that I shall be told that it is a dangerous precedent and never, even in the case of the mines, would I be able to have my old clause again. But I will certainly look into it and consider, from the point of view of the public interest, as I know your Lordships will consider, what is the right course to take in this matter.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

4.23 p.m.

Clause 5:

Bylaws

5.—(1) A river board may by bylaws make such provision as respects any stream in their area as appears to them expedient—

(b) for prohibiting or regulating the washing or cleaning in the stream of animals or of other things or the putting into the stream of litter or other objectionable matter, whether poisonous, noxious or polluting or not;

The Earl of Onslow moved, in subsection (1) (b) to omit "or of other" and to insert "articles or." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment originating, I believe, from another place. The original clause as it stood was agreed by the Minister as not being wide enough to cover all the articles intended. I have been asked by the association interested in this matter to put forward this Amendment, which seeks to make the clause wide enough to cover articles, such as motor cars and milk churns and things of that sort that should not be washed in the rivers. At the moment, the word "things" applies only to things pertaining to animals, whereas we all wish that no noxious thing should be washed in the rivers to add to pollution. I beg to move,

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 36, leave out from ("animals") to ("things") and insert ("articles or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I have some sympathy with this Amendment but I am advised that there is some doubt as to whether the Amendment achieves what the noble Earl would like to achieve. If he will agree to withdraw his present wording, we will consult with him between now and Report stage and I think we can devise a suitable Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am much obliged. I am sure we are both on the same ground. It is merely a matter of words.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) to insert as a new paragraph: (d) for regulating the siting and construction of storm overflows of drains or sewers carrying both sewage effluent and surface water, and the mode of discharge of sewage therefrom.

The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment, which I gather is desired by local authorities, as well as by the regulating boards, is to enable the local authorities definitely to know where they stand and to make it plain that the river board by its by-laws shall be able to regulate the siting and construction of storm overflows of drains or sewers. There is such a provision in the Scottish measure, and I am advised that it would be simpler, both for the river boards and for the local authorities concerned, if the Scottish provision were also in the English Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 42, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

As the noble Viscount will agree at once, the works to which he referred are an integral part of the sewerage systems and are the responsibility of the local authority. This does not mean that storm water overflows will be outside by-law control. That is not so. The river board will be entitled, if they wish, to make by-laws prescribing the standards with which effluents from the overflows must comply. There is no reason to fear that the proper design of any new overflows that may be necessary will be lost sight of when new schemes are being prepared. Local authorities' proposals are usually subject to the Minister's sanction, and it is his invariable practice not only to ensure that these points are watched by his own technical officers but also to take into account the views of the river board before approving work of this kind.

If the noble Viscount will look at his own Amendment to Clause 7, to which I will come in a moment, he will find that that Amendment, if accepted, as it will be, will ensure that the river board can exercise any reasonable control in the few cases where the Minister's consent may not be necessary. The noble Viscount made reference to the various associations. I am advised that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Association are opposed to this Amendment. In view of the impending acceptance of the noble Viscount's later Amendment, and of the general position that the storm water overflows will be subject to by-law control, the Minister feels that it would be unwise for him to become responsible in any way for what the sewerage authority may do in what is, after all, an engineering job.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

This is not an Amendment for which I want to die in the last ditch, or overflow or sewer, but when this matter was discussed in another place the Minister said he would find out what the local authorities wanted. The noble Lord says he understands something, but I should like to know whether the Minister has consulted the local authorities. Is the noble Lord able to tell me that the Minister has consulted the local authorities and that the local authorities do not want it? I do not ask for an answer now, across the Floor of the House but I should like to be sure, before we part from this clause, that this is not just a Departmental opinion of what they think they would like in the Bill. If the noble Lord will give us that information next time, I will withdraw the Amendment now and put it down on Report, so that we may have an assurance. The other thing I should like to know is, why is my Amendment in the Scottish Bill and not in the English Bill? I should have thought that what a Scottish local authority wanted, an English local authority probably wanted too. If the noble Lord will undertake to give that information on Report stage, I will gladly withdraw this Amendment to-day.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, in subsection (1) after the end of paragraph (c) to insert: Before making bye-laws under this subsection, other than bye-laws revoking or amending bye-laws previously made thereunder, a river board shall make such survey as may be necessary of the area in which the stream or the part thereof to which it is intended that the proposed bye-law shall apply is situate.

The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I think the Minister might like to accept, because the Hobday Report recommended that no bylaw should be confirmed until the Minister was satisfied that the proper survey had been completed. That also is in the Scottish Bi11. Obviously, if there is a duty to make a survey and a duty to make a bylaw, presumably the survey has to come before the bylaw, and the bylaw will not be made until the survey has been completed. I think the Scots have been both practical and logical in this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

At the moment the Minister does not consider that this Amendment is necessary, but he is quite willing, between now and Report, to allow the noble Viscount to try to convince him that it is necessary.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Does the noble Lord mean by that that the Bill as now drafted compels the river board to make a survey before it makes a bylaw? Is that what is meant?

LORD MACDONALD 0F GWAENYSGOR

No. The position would be this. The Minister himself, having the responsibility of confirmation, is not likely to confirm a bylaw which will not give satisfaction to all concerned. To give satisfaction to all concerned, a survey would be necessary, if not essential. It is on those grounds that he considers the Amendment unnecessary.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

With the greatest respect, I do not think that is a very satisfactory answer. I am not going to divide on the Amendment now, but I should have thought that if this was the right practice—and the noble Lord says that the Minister would never dream of confirming a bylaw until there had been a survey—why not say that there has to be a survey? The Scottish Bill provides that there must be a survey first. If you have different wording in the Scottish and English Bills, it indicates that there is intended to be a difference of practice in the two countries. It means that in Scotland there must be a survey, whereas in England that is not necessary, and it is merely left to the Minister to say, "I do not like your bylaw, and until you have had a survey I will not approve it." I should have thought that, as nearly as possible, we want the practice in England and in Scotland to be the same. We want to have bylaws which will be carried out with good will. Unless there is good will, however many prosecutions there may be, this scheme will not work. There are no prejudices about this matter, and I hope the noble Lord will consider it again. In my view, the Scottish Bill is better for the inclusion of those words. I will withdraw my Amendment now, but I shall certainly put it down again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This is consequential on the first Amendment I moved. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 17, at end insert: and where any such effluent as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section two of this Act is poisonous, noxious or polluting in any respect in which it ought to comply with a standard so prescribed, that subsection shall not apply to the effluent."—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.32 p.m.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (3) to insert: ( ) Section fifteen of the Electricity Act, 1919 (which enables an order to be made authorising the abstraction of water from any river, stream. &c.) (as amended by the Electricity Act. 1947) shall be read and have effect as if the following paragraph were added at the end of the proviso to subsection (1) of that section— '(e) No order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from a stream (as defined in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1950) unless it also provides for the return of the water in a condition and at a temperature which conform to the relevant standards prescribed by any bylaws made under section four of the said Act and for the time being in force in relation to the stream or part of the stream into which water is to he returned'.

The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment arising out of paragraph 201 of the Hobday Report, which recommends an amendment of the Electricity Act 1919, to ensure that orders laid down by the Minister of Fuel and Power shall not conflict with existing by-laws relating to temperatures fixed by the local river boards. It seems to me a reasonable Amendment and will assist in making this Bill stronger. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My right honourable friend is unable to accept this Amendment, although he appreciates what is behind it. He understands that the river boards, and it may be other associations, are rather concerned; that they would like some statement to be made here that would clear up the position as to what can be done. My right honourable friend has authorised me to make this statement. The Minister is advised that even if the maximum temperature prescribed in bylaws differed from the maximum temperature fixed in an order made by the Minister of Fuel and Power, the effluent from the power station would have to comply with both by being within both the maxima mentioned—that is, it would have to be within the lower of the two maximum temperatures. For this reason, the Amendment is unnecessary. In practice, the fixing of conflicting maximum temperatures is most unlikely because consultation between the two Departments would invariably precede the making of an order or the confirmation of bylaws. The Minister has been in touch with the Minister of Fuel and Power on the subject and is willing to give the assurance that this consultation will continue in the future, and that any remote possible causes of differences between the bylaws and an order made by the Minister of Fuel and Power will be prevented by administrative action. In view of that statement, perhaps the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps we can discuss it between now and Report stage, in order to make certain that the two interests are agreed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Restrictions on new outlets and new discharges

7.—(1) Subject to this section, no person shall bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream, or begin to make any new discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream, unless—

  1. (a) he has given the river board notice of his intention to do so not less than two months beforehand (or such less period as the board may agree to); and
  2. (b) he has either given the board with that notice, or made available for their inspection at all reasonable times at a place specified in the notice, plans and specifications of the new or altered outlet or particulars of the new discharge, as the case may be; and
  3. (c) in the case of a new or altered outlet, the outlet is so constructed as to comply with any requirements reasonably imposed by the board to enable them to exercise their right to take samples of the effluent.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the bringing into use of any new or altered outlet which forms part of the sewage disposal or sewerage works of a local authority if its construction or alteration, as the case may be, or the raising of a loan to defray the cost thereof, has been approved or authorised by the Minister.

(4) Any question as to the reasonableness of any requirements imposed by a river board for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the said subsection (1) shall be determined by the Minister.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

We really discussed this matter when dealing with the first Government Amendment on the Marshalled List. I gather that the Government will accept this Amendment, and therefore I beg formally to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 7, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 22 and insert ("without the consent of the river board (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld) bring into use any new or altered outlet for the discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream or begin to make any new discharge of trade or sewage effluent to a stream. (2) On an application for consent under the foregoing subsection the river board may grant their consent subject to such conditions as they may reasonably impose, and in particular such conditions may be imposed with respect to the point of discharge into any stream of any new or altered outlet. (3) A river board shall not grant their consent to the bringing into use of a new altered outlet unless the outlet is so constructed as to comply with any requirements reasonably imposed by the authority to enable them to exercise their right to take samples of the effluent.").—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I am advised that it may be necessary to make some slight verbal alterations, but otherwise I will accept this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Perhaps we can insert the Amendment now and make any further alterations on Report stage.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Yes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

moved to add to subsection (3) "after consultation with the river board." The noble Earl said: This, again, is a small Amendment. Its object is to help the river boards to exercise a similar measure of control over sewage disposal and sewage works as would be required in relation to new out- lets. The river boards consider that they should be consulted by the Minister before consent is given. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 45, at end insert ("after consultation with the river board").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary. River boards are not only prevention of pollution authorities, they are also land drainage authorities. Under Section 15 of the Public Health Act, 1936, a local authority must give to a land drainage authority notice of proposals which may interfere with any water course under the control of that land drainage authority. It is the Minister's invariable practice to consider the views of the land drainage authority before he approves works affecting streams: he has similarly consulted the ad hoc boards that were previously responsible for prevention of pollution, that is to say, the Thames Conservancy, the West Riding of Yorkshire river boards and others. It is difficult to understand why this practice should be interfered with when it has worked well for so long, and I hope that since it has been effective in the past and will continue in the future, the noble Earl will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

The EARL OF ONSLOW

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I really set out to discover the facts, and I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

This and the next two Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 1, after ("question") insert ("whether the consent of a river board has or has not been unreasonably withheld or").—(Viscount Swinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 1, after the second ("any") insert ("conditions or").—(Viscount Swinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 2, leave out from ("board") to ("shall") in line 3, and insert ("under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section ").—(Viscount Swinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Combination of sewage disposal or sewerage systems]:

On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I want to say one word on this clause. There is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, but I wish to give the Government notice that a matter may be raised on the Report stage with regard to this clause. There has been some discussion on what is to happen where there are sewage schemes which involve both local authorities and corporations of satellite towns. I think there is a provision that where there is a dispute, the Minister has to arbitrate. Broadly speaking, I think an appeal to the Minister is satisfactory, because he is in an independent position. But I think the Minister might be in an embarrassing position if the dispute was one between what I may call the satellite towns—the corporations—and a local authority, because then he has direct responsibility for, and indeed is the promoter and almost the owner of, the satellite towns. In that case the Minister would have the embarrassment of being a judge in his own case, which he probably would not wish to be. There is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, and I did not want the Government to be taken by surprise on the next occasion should an Amendment be put down. I shall be obliged if the noble Lord will look at the matter.

Clause 9 agreed to.

4.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:

Reports of River Boards, etc.

".—(1) Section twelve of the River Boards Act, 1948, shall have effect as if there were added at the end of subsection (2) thereof the words 'and shall be so framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information with respect to the activities of river boards under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.'

(2) The Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament copies of the reports of river boards sent to him in each year under section twelve of the River Boards Act, 1948, and shall at the same time lay before each House of Parliament, a report with respect to the exercise by him of his functions under this Act during that year."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment seeks to give effect to an undertaking which was given in another place that the reports of the river boards should be laid before Parliament. When this proposal was made in another place the Minister in charge said that he did not quite like the words of the particular Amendment moved. He said (speaking of the honourable Member who moved it): I will not take the exact words which he has put down, but I will undertake to put down an Amendment requiring the laying before each House of Parliament of each of the river boards reports, and that would be in addition to the passage which I will include in my own report. Some slip-up occurred in the Report stage in another place, and it seems that the Minister did not have time to put down that Amendment. Therefore I have moved this Amendment, which I think gives effect to his undertaking. One point which perhaps I ought to emphasise is that the Amendment also provides that, at the same time as he lays the reports, the Minister shall also lay before each House of Parliament a report with respect to the exercise by him of his functions under the Act during that year. I am not sure whether that point was discussed in another place. It seems to me to be a reasonable provision, when we have the river boards' reports before each House of Parliament, to have also a report from the Minister as to his actions under the Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Swinton.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I take it for granted that the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that all information available is included in the annual reports of the river boards. If that is the case I am not sure that the Amendment is necessary,

VISCOUNT SWINTON

There are two parts to the Amendment. The first sets out that Section twelve of the River Boards Act, 1948, shall have effect as if there were added at the end of subsection (2) thereof the words 'and shall be so framed as to provide, as far as may be, separate information with respect to the activities of river boards… That may or may not be necessary: I am not sure. The second provision begins by stating that— The Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament copies of the reports of river boards… That provsion, I think, is clearly necessary, and the Minister said in another place that he himself would propose an Amendment which would have that effect.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

As I see the position, it is clear that under subsection (2) of the Amendment the Minister may lay papers before Parliament without being specially requested to do so. In this instance, he has given an undertaking that he will lay the reports of the river boards. There has been quite a little correspondence going on since this matter was discussed in another place, and I think that it may be possible for us to accommodate each other with regard to this Amendment. I suggest that perhaps the best course, if the noble Viscount will agree, would be that, between now and the Report stage, he should see the correspondence, which is fairly voluminous.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Correspondence with whom?

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The correspondence between the Minister and the honourable Member who moved the Amendment in another place, Mr. Colegate.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It seems to me that this goes a little beyond that. I will, of course, gladly look at any correspondence; but I think that this is a matter which rather goes beyond correspondence with one particular Member by the Minister. I believe there was a general feeling in another place, and I think there would be here, that the reports of these river boards should be laid before Parliament. We get a great many Papers which we do not want, but both Houses are clearly showing very great interest in this Bill, and I think members of both Houses would want to have these reports. And the Minister, of course, did give a definite undertaking. I do not assert that the first subsection of my Amendment is necessary. The laying of reports of the river boards was a matter on which the Minister did give an undertaking, and on that, I think, Parliament would like to insist.

LORD LLOYD

Before the noble Lord replies I should like to support what the noble Viscount has said. I should have thought, if I may say so, that it was important that both these subsections should be in the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, and I think absolutely rightly, that our rivers are in a dreadful state, and that it is important that public opinion should be focused on this matter. People should concentrate on trying to do something about it. He wanted, he said, to put "teeth" into this Bill and I believe that in that we all agree with him. I believe that if "teeth" are going to be put into the Bill, people must be kept up to date with what is being done. Public opinion must be interested in these matters. If the whole question of pollution is to be buried in the middle of the River Boards Act, without a separate section, I think it will be much more difficult for the public to follow it. On these grounds, I think it would be a good thing to have pollution dealt with as a separate subject in any report. For the same reason, I submit, it is important that these river board reports should be laid before Parliament. I hope that, in view of these considerations, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, may feel himself able to look at this matter again between now and the next stage of the Bill.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Before we leave this matter, let us be clear as to the full significance of the Amendment. Let us look at the first subsection of the proposed new clause. Your Lordships are well aware that the Ministers of Local Government and Planning and of Agriculture and Fisheries are empowered by subsection (2) of Section 12 of the River Boards Act of 1948 to direct what particulars shall be included in the annual reports of river boards. The directions have already been drafted, and are being discussed with representatives of the river boards. The directions require the boards to devote a separate and comprehensive section of their reports to all their activities in connection with the prevention of pollution, whether they are undertaken under the powers of the new legislation or by any other means—such as by persuasion or by consultation with the interests concerned or by researeh. Now take the first part of subsection (2) of the Amendment. I have already said that I am wondering whether it is necessary. The Minister has given a definite undertaking that he will lay the reports of the river boards. I should have thought that that was going a long way. The second part of subsection (2), it seems to me, would cause a great deal of unnecessary duplication of work. I agree that we are getting a great many Papers—perhaps too many. But the Minister makes an annual report which is presented by the King's command to Parliament. That report deals with all the Minister's functions, and a Minister's report must in future deal with the exercise of his functions under the new Act, otherwise it will be incomplete. It may be recognised that this is unnecessary, and I would point out that if the Amendment is withdrawn now, it will be so that consideration may be given to the matter between now and the Report stage. It is felt by the Minister and his advisers that this Amendment is unnecessary, and that what is aimed at can be achieved without an Amendment of this kind.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I will gladly withdraw the Amendment now. As at present advised, I think the noble Lord has gone a good way towards convincing me that my first subsection is unnecessary. The last part of my second subsection about a special report of the Minister, too, it seems, is not necessary. I should like to consider what should be put down for the Report stage. As I am at present advised, it seems that all that it is required is a simple clause saying that reports of the river board should be laid, and that is what the Minister has given an undertaking to do.

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to put forward this consideration. Is it not the case that the Minister's undertaking expires when the Minister ceases to hold office, or at any rate when the Government of which he is a member comes to an end? I should like to see the laying of reports made a statutory obligation. Moreover, I think the reports of the river boards should be separately printed; once they are set up in print it is a simple matter to make a separate report on that subject. This is a matter of such cardinal importance that I think these reports should be made as accessible as possible to Members of both Houses.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 [Interpretation]:

LORD SALTOUN had given notice of an Amendment, after subsection (1) to insert; ( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in this Bill 'tidal waters' includes waters in any dock vested in a harbour board, within the meaning of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.

The noble Lord said: This is a matter of definition. I have a fairly long statement from the Dock and Harbour Boards Association, of which I am a member, but I will not inflict it upon your Lordships. I will say simply that the legal experts of the Association are sharply divided on the question of whether or not a dock is a tidal water. If this Bill goes through without that matter being defined, the Association will be under the necessity of drafting a reference to counsel and perhaps obtaining counsel's opinion on the matter. Even then, the point will not be decided; it will still be only an opinion. I do not think it is a good principle to make a law which leaves an ambiguity about its meaning. Therefore, I hope that His Majesty's Government will either accept this Amendment—which, by the way, should include the word "Act", instead of "Bill," in the second line—or some other similar Amendment. Under Clause 6 the Government have power at any time to make the Bill applicable to tidal waters, even if docks are considered to be tidal waters. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 3, at end insert— ("( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in this Act 'tidal waters' includes waters in any dock vested in a harbour board, within the meaning of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.")—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I waited for the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, to put forward his argument in support of this Amendment because I was in some difficulty in knowing exactly what he wanted from us. Now that he has made a statement, I think there is something in what he is asking. If he will withdraw his Amendment, we can discuss it between now and Report stage and I think we can find a suitable form of words to provide for what he wants.

LORD SALTOUN

I am obliged to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Short title, repeal, extent and commencement]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This Amendment is consequential, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 9, at beginning insert ("Except as otherwise provided in this Act").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.