§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
5VISCOUNT GAGEMy Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I would like to apologise for the short time that has elapsed between the Second Reading and this stage; but, as has already been explained, this is Bill of exceptional urgency, and the delay is short on that account; also, as your Lordships will remember, there was no opposition whatever to this Bill on Second Reading.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Visco Gage.)
§ LORD STRACHIEMy Lords, I think there is some reason to complain of the way in which the Government have treated this matter, because this Bill was read a second time only last Wednesday. When the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, was asked what business was going to be taken he made no statement about this Bill, and we saw in the Papers on Thursday morning that it was to be taken to-day. That leaves practically no time at all when you have to consult people in the country. I happen to have Charge of Amendments for the Central Landowners' Association, and I have had to communicate with other people. With the greatest difficulty I was able to get the Amendments in before twelve o'clock on Saturday, but that gave very little time for noble Lords to consider them. In fact, no noble Lord could get the Marshalled List unless he came to this House. I do not think we need to have the Bill rushed in this way. Another day or two would make all the difference.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, it is quite true that we are taking this Bill as quickly as possible. The Second Reading was taken on Wednesday last and generally we leave a week, if we can, between Second Reading and Committee, but the fact is that this is a matter of extreme urgency. We could not take the Committee stage on any other day this week, because Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday were long ago hypothecated to the Parliament (Reform) Bill, and therefore we could not get it in at all this week if we did not do so to-day. There will be some Amendments which will have to be considered in another place, and there will have to be a Report stage. Therefore, unless we took the Bill to-day, it would mean that we could not get the Royal Assent before we broke up for the 6 Whitsuntide adjournment. The situation is a very serious one. I do not want to develop that at length, because it was explained on Second Reading, and also in another place. Every day that the delay continues millions of gallons of water, which may be very urgently wanted for the safety and sanitation of the country later on, are running away under the provisions which this Bill seeks to suspend for a certain period; and therefore it is a matter of great urgency to get the Bill at the earliest possible moment. While I quite agree that the time is short, I hope that, in view of the facts that there was no opposition at all on the Second Reading, that there was no opposition in another place, and that the Bill is urgently required, your Lordships will think that we are not acting unreasonably in asking you to take the Committee to-day.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2:
§ Power to authorise the execution of works, and entry on, and use of, land.
§ 2. An Order may authorise undertakers on whom it confers any power or imposes any duty to execute any works required for the discharge of their functions thereunder and may authorise them for that purpose—
- (a) to exercise in any specified locality the powers contained in Sections twenty-eight to thirty-four of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847; and
- to enter upon any specified land after giving to the owner and occupier thereof not less than seven days notice in writing and to occupy and use the land to such extent and in such manner as may be requisite for the execution of the works.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, to substitute "fourteen days" for "seven days" in paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: There was so little time that I had to hand in this Amendment in manuscript form, but it is a simple matter. It is only a question of substituting fourteen days for seven days. Clause 2 deals with power to authorise the execution of works and entry on and use of land, and paragraph ((b) provides that not less than seven days notice in writing shall be given to the owner and occupier of any specified land. It seems to me that seven clays is a very short time. It may be very 7 simple in the case of the occupier, but you have to consider the case of the landowner. The landowner may not be there at all. The occupier may not have any objection, but as far as the landowner is concerned the matter may go by default. The landowner may be in Paris, or he may be travelling or doing anything, and it may be impossible to give notice to him. Surely it does not matter if the notice is extended to fourteen days?
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT GAGEAlthough the noble Lord quite correctly states that this Amendment was only handed in just before the debate, the principle has been already discussed in another place, and I think the interests represented there were the same as are represented by the noble Lord in this House. My right honourable friend was unable to accept the Amendment in another place because, as he pointed out, the whole effect of the emergency procedure would be lost if the notice is delayed. I hope it will be clear that this notice of entry only takes place after an Order has been made—that is to say, everybody implicated will be well aware of the nature and character of the Order, and this seven days notice is really in the nature of a formality. The actual scope and all the particulars of the Order will have already been made known. I do not think the noble Lord need have any great fear that owners will be taken by surprise by reason of the entry being made subject to seven days notice. There is a precedent for this length of notice in the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1921, and I do not know if the noble Lord can quote any case of hardship arising from the shortness of notice under that Act.
§ LORD STRACHIEI do not say I am satisfied with what the noble Viscount has stated. He states that this is more or less a matter of form. In that case, why not have fourteen days and thus make quite sure that the owner does get notice? That seems to me only reasonable. You have to remember that under this Bill there are not only temporary alterations being made, but there is provision for making these alterations permanent; but I shall have something to say on that point later on.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
8§ Clause 3 [Power to authorise the taking of water for an indefinite period and the purchase of land]:
VISCOUNT GAGEAll my Amendments except one to this clause are drafting. The first is a drafting Amendment, but if any noble Lord wishes anything explained I shall endeavour to do so.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, leave out ("authorises undertakers to take") and insert ("is made for the purpose of authorising under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section one of this Act the taking of").—(Viscount Cage.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "with the necessary adaptations" and insert "subject to such additions, variations and omissions as may be required in the circumstances of each particular case." The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment in order to get an explanation from the noble Viscount. It seems to me that this clause is rather straining the Bill so as to cover almost everything, and I suggest that my Amendment would be justified. The object I have in view is to secure that every case shall be treated on its merits. I can see no logical reason why the Government should refuse to make this alteration. The noble Viscount may be able to give me some reason, but on the face of it the clause as it stands is not reasonable.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("with the necessary adaptations") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT GAGEI think the effect of this Amendment would go much further than the Bill actually goes. It would enable the Minister very substantially to alter the general law. As the clause stands, what he does is to apply the provisions of the general law to the cases that come under Clause 3—that is to say, cases where the taking of water is authorised for an indefinite period. As the Bill is drafted the Minister is authorised only to make the necessary adaptations in the general law. He can make provisions for adapting the law to the case 9 he is dealing with, but he cannot alter the substance of the law. It is submitted that this is the right course to adopt and that any other course, such as the acceptance of this Amendment, would constitute an undesirable precedent.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("Acts, 1847 and 1863") and insert ("Act, 1847").
Page 4, line 35, have out ("taking of water") and insert ("construction of the waterworks").
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("with respect to the purdhase of land").
Page 4, line 38, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("may") in line 43 and insert ("and").
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("the") and insert ("other").—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGEI understand the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, is not moving the Amendment which comes next in his name. My next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("with respect to the execution of works").
Page 5, line 10, at end insert ("and the word 'stream' shall be deemed to include canals, reservoirs, lakes and ponds").—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§
LORD STRACHIE moved to insert the following new subsection at the end of the clause:
(9) Before any Order under this sector is made it shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and such Order shall not be made unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Minister may make the Order in the form in which it has been approved and the Order on being so made shall be of full force and effect.
§ The noble Lord said: I think one of the reasons why The Times described this Bill as very drastic was the fact that the Minister, without any intervention by Parliament and without Parliament having control over what he might think fit to do, is able to make Orders. This only applies to Orders under Clause 3 and the Special Orders Procedure so far as re 10 gards providing what is necessary for confirmatory Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. It should be borne in mind that the Orders with which Clause 3 is concerned are now restricted, and they are henceforth to be permanent not temporary. That being so, I do not think what I suggest in my Amendment is an unnecessary precaution. I would particularly refer to what was said in another place, where an honourable Member complained very strongly indeed, and said he hoped something would be done. No doubt the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is aware of the statement to which I refer.
§
It was made on Third Reading in another place by Sir Francis Fremantle, who said:
Upstairs I suggested that it might be advisable, and that possibly it was necessary, that such Orders should be laid on the Table of the House so as to give Parliament an opportunity of reviewing them or approving them. I believe that to be the right principle to adopt. The reply I received was that it would delay matters. I do not think that it would delay matters at all, because this is the practice followed in regard to the Tariff Orders. Because this is creating such a precedent. I have some qualms in giving to the Minister the duty and responsibility of making these Orders without Parliament having an opportunity of reviewing them. I hope that the matter may he taken into consideration in another place"—
that is, this House—
because I feel uneasy in regard to it, but in every other respect I congratulate the Government on what seems to be very useful and prompt action.
§ In the House of Commons supporters of the Government have been very doubtful about this matter, and I think it might be very desirable for the noble Viscount to make some concession, because his own supporters do not like these Orders to be made by a Minister. The noble Viscount may say that it is an emergency matter. It is not entirely an emergency matter because in certain parts of this Bill you put up permanent works and they remain permanent.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(ford Strachie.)
VISCOUNT CAGEThe noble Lord said that these permanent works were not of an emergency nature. I think that is not really a correct view of the Bill. Whenever an Order under this Bill is made, 11 whether it is for permanent work or the much larger case of temporary work, there must be a state of emergency. The Minister must be satisfied that there is likely to be a serious deficiency of water in any particular locality. After having considered that point, we must also consider what would happen if the noble Lord's suggestion was put into effect. For instance, as was said on Second Reading, it is quite obvious that undertakers are not likely to proceed with works if there is a danger of Parliament reversing the decision of the Minister. I ask noble Lords to consider the fact that this work may have to be done when Parliament is in Recess, at a time when a serious shortage of water is threatened. I think it is clear that the whole benefit of the emergency procedure would be lost if this alteration was made in the Bill. The noble Lord can rest assured that there are a great number of safeguards operating in the case of works which it is intended should be permanent. For instance, the Minister must be satisfied that permanent work can be completed within six months after the commencement. That, I think, shows that no very large scheme will be carried out under Clause 3. Secondly, the Minister must be satisfied that the powers granted are powers that would have been granted if the water undertakers had been applying for them in the ordinary course when there was no emergency threatened. I think these are very strong safeguards, and I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that it is not the intention to abuse the present situation under this provision.
§ LORD STRACHIEEven if the noble Viscount will not go so far as I desire him to go in my Amendment, would he have any objection to doing what is the general practice now? When Bills are introduced there is a provision that all these Orders should be laid on the Table of both Houses, and if either House passes a Resolution against them they become null and void. That would not interfere with what has already been done if it is a case of emergency. That is a common practice now in both Houses.
VISCOUNT GAGEI do not think the suggestion is one that can be followed, in view of the shortness of time, which I quite agree has been inevitable in this matter, but I will certainly consult my 12 right honourable friend between now and the Report stage in regard to it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Penalties]:
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("in respect of each offence").—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 6:
§ Compensation.
§ (3)In assessing compensation to be made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1), or under subsection (2), of this section, regard may be had to the amount of water which, on an equitable apportionment of the water available from the source between the claimant, the undertakers and other persons taking water from the source, might fairly be apportioned to the claimant.
§ (4)Compensation shall be made by the undertakers in relation to whom an Order is made suspending or modifying an obligation as respects the taking of water from a source, or as respects the discharge of compensation water, to persons who but for the Order would have been entitled to institute proceedings in respect of a failure to comply with the obligation, for damage sustained by them by reason of water being taken without compliance with the obligation, or of compensation water not being discharged, or being discharged otherwise than in accordance with the obligation.
§ In assessing compensation to be made under this subsection regard may be had to the amount of water which, under the conditions existing by reason of the shortage of rain, would have been available to the claimant during the period during which the deficiency of supplies of water has continued, if the undertaking in relation to which the application was imposed had never been carried out.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out line 6 and insert ("which authorises the taking thereof for an indefinite period").—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I 13 have put down this Amendment because the clause deals with the question of compensation. I think that really all that is necessary is to ask the noble Viscount exactly how compensation is to be assessed. It is very complicated. If your Lordships look at this subsection, you will see that it has reference to paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and then you have to go on to subsection (2). I would like to ask the noble Viscount to be so good as to inform the Committee exactly what will be the procedure in a case where an owner is interfered with either as regards his water supply or as to coming on to his land. What sort of compensation will he get, and what protection will he have under the Bill? It is very difficult to find that out from the Bill as it is drafted. There may be full compensation or there may not. I should like to know how compensation will be assessed.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT GAGEI understand that the noble Lord has moved this Amendment with the object of obtaining some explanation. I regret that the notice given has been so short. That raises a difficulty which applies to the Government as well as to the, noble Lord. I should not like to embark upon a full explanation without proper notice. If the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment now, I will go into the matter on the Report stage.
§ LORD STRACHIEI appreciate what the noble Viscount has said. I know the difficulty. If we can have some explanation on the Report stage to make the matter clear, I will withdraw my Amendment now.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "regard may be had" and insert "the arbitrator may, if he thinks fit, have regard." The noble Viscount said: This is really a technical Amendment. The subsection says that in assessing compensation in cases where the water undertakers are authorised to take water from a new source or from a source otherwise than in accordance with restrictions to which they are subject or where the Order prohibits or limits how much water may be taken, the arbitrator 14 may take into account the amount of water from that source which might fairly be apportioned to the claimant. In subsection (4) in assessing compensation the arbitrator may take into account the amount of water which would have been available to the claimant during the drought if the waterworks (that is, the impounding reservor) had never been carried out. This Amendment and a subsequent Amendment which I shall move will make it clear that the arbitrator need only take these matters into account where he thinks it is equitable and proper to do so. Therefore the Amendments are in favour of those who have a right to claim compensation, and I think that to some extent answers the question which the noble Lord put just now.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29, leave out ("regard may be had") and insert ("the arbitrator may, if he thinks fit, have regard).—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved to omit from subsection (4) the paragraph beginning "In assessing compensation." The noble Lord said: Here again I should like to have some explanation. The subsection says that in assessing compensation regard may be had to the amount of water. It seems to me that the position as regards claims for compensation resulting from an Order made under Clause 3 of the Bill arises here also. It is not clear whether claims in respect of such. Orders are covered by this clause. If they are they can apparently be made at any time under Section 3, the operation of which may be permanent. There are some things under this Bill which are permanent. On the other hand, it may be intended that an Order under Clause 3 should contain, by incorporation or otherwise, its own provisions as to compensation claims. It is not clear whether only one claim can be made or whether claims can be made from time to time. I would like to ask the noble Viscount if he can give a clear explanation of the position. It is a matter which I suppose will have to be interpreted by lawyers, and therefore it is important to have the matter clear. If the noble Viscount cannot do that now, I should be content to withdraw and have the matter considered again on Report.
15
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out lines 3 to 10.—(Lord Strachie.)
VISCOUNT GAGEAgain I must say it is difficult at short notice to give an answer, which really would have to be a legal interpretation of the Bill. I would, however, point out that the principle on Which compensation is to be assessed turns on the fundamental question as to whether it is right that the whole burden due to very exceptional drought should fall on the water undertakings. A drought of such a very exceptional character as that which we have experienced lately is really in the nature of an act of God, and our view is that in such a case it is inequitable that the burden should fall wholly on the water undertakers—that is, on the consumers of water, or in cases where a deficiency has to be borne by the rates, on the general body of ratepayers. To throw the whole burden on them would be, we consider, against common fairness. If the noble Lord will be good enough to inform me more specifically of the difficulties he has in mind I will endeavour to clarify them on the next stage of the Bill.
§ LORD STRACHIEAfter What the noble Viscount has said, I beg leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 4, leave out ("regard may be had") and insert ("the arbitrator may, if he thinks fit, have regard")
Page 8, line 9, leave out ("application") and insert ("obligation").—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9 [Validity of Orders]:
§
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Page 10, line 10, leave out ("to which this section applies").—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 9, as amended, greed to.
16§ Clause 10:
§ Interpretation.
§
10.—(1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them:—
Compensation water" means water which any water undertakers are under an obligation to discharge into a river, stream, brook or other running water as a condition of carrying on their undertaking;
§ VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in the definition of "compensation water," after the last "water," to insert" or into a canal." The noble Viscount said: In some local Acts, provision is made for compensation water to be discharged direct into a canal. This Amendment is moved to make it clear that the expression "compensation water" includes compensation water required to be discharged into a canal. It is for the protection of the owners of canals.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 22, after ("water") insert ("or into a canal").—(Viscount Gage.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ Schedule: