§ Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, from 1897 to 1907, the number of applications by the West Riding Rivers Board for sanction to take proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Acts was 105; whether sanction was withheld in more than 10 of these cases; how many applications have been made to him by the West Riding Rivers Board under section 6 of The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, since 31st October, 1907; how many of these have been dealt with by the Local Government Board; how many have been ignored; and how many public inquiries have been held concerning these cases?
987W
§ Mr. BURNSThe number of applications between the 1st January, 1898, and the 31st December, 1906, was 104. Of these, 18 were withdrawn by the Rivers Board. The decision of the Local Government Board was postponed in five cases, in four of which this course was taken at the request of the Rivers Board. Sanction to proceedings was given in 72 cases, and withheld in nine. The number of applications received since the 31st October, 1907, is 39. Of these, 13 have been withdrawn by the Rivers Board, inquiries have been held or promised in two, in one case a decision has been postponed at the request of the Rivers Board, and in the remaining cases the Board have not felt able, on the information before them, to take further action.
§ Mr. CLOUGHasked why no local inquiry was held in the two cases submitted to him upon 29th July, 1907, by the West Riding Rivers Board; whether it is incumbent upon him, or whether it has been usual for the Local Government Board, in administering the Rivers Pollution Acts, 1876 and 1894, to hold a local inquiry concerning each application for sanction to take proceedings under those Acts; and whether it is competent for the Local Government Board to refuse such sanction without a local inquiry?
§ Mr. BURNSThe Local Government Board are not required to direct a local inquiry concerning each application for sanction to take proceedings under the Acts referred to; but an inquiry must be held before they give their consent to proceedings being taken. An inquiry was not held in relation to the proposed proceedings against the Dewsbury and Batley Corporations, which are the cases mentioned in the first part of the question, as the considerations applicable to them did not appear to be such as to render an inquiry necessary.
§ Mr. CLOUGHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in reply to a deputation of the British Science Guild, on the 31st October, 1907, he said that he considered that manufacturers should be persuaded, and if not amenable to persuasion should be compelled, to deal with efffluents in such a manner as to make them innocuous, and that in many instances this might be done not only at no great. cost to themselves, hat actually to their own profit; and whether, upon that same occasion, he expressed a hope to bring in a Bill in the spring of 1908 to deal with the pollution 988W of rivers by trade effluents; and, if so, what steps he now proposes to take?
§ Mr. BURNSThe reply to the first two points in the question is in the affirmative. As I have previously intimated, the subject is receiving my attention with a view to legislation.
§ Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board how he reconciles his administration of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, and the West Riding Rivers Act, 1894, with his declaration 31st October, 1907, to a deputation of the British Science Guild; and whether he proposes to reduce those Acts of Parliament to a dead letter pending the introduction by him, at some unknown future date, of legislation to deal with the pollution of streams and rivers by manufacturers' and other trade effluents?
§ Mr. BURNSThere does not seem to me to be any inconsistency in this matter. I see no reason to depart from the statements I made to the deputation, but I must necessarily have regard to the fact of proposed legislation in dealing with applications which are made to me to sanction proceedings under the Acts mentioned in the question.