WATER SUPPLIES (EXCEPTIONAL SHORTAGE ORDERS) BILL. (Hansard, 2 May 1934)

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, this is a temporary measure which the Government has been compelled to put before Parliament to cope with an altogether exceptional situation. I emphasise that aspect of the Bill because it contains provisions which appear to over-ride the safeguards which Parliament has seen fit to enact to limit the power and authority of water undertakings. Those safeguards have been provided for the most part with the idea of protecting the rights of private owners, of local authorities and of other statutory undertakers. Those rules have been established by Parliament for a long 1018 period and we do not suggest that they should be superseded by Departmental Order except as a temporary measure to meet the special circumstances with which we are confronted. I think everybody will agree that at such times it is essential that some over-riding central authority should be armed with powers to deal with situations as they may arise in a more expeditious way than is possible under ordinary Parliamentary procedure.
A real water famine in the big centres of population would be a very serious matter, and with the elaborate system of supply which these big centres demand a shortage cannot be remedied merely by a few days rain. The water is drawn from the subsoil, sometimes at considerable depths, and it may be that a period of not only weeks but months must elapse before the benefits of rain falling on the surface are really noticeable. Now not only was last summer an exceptionally dry summer but it was followed by an exceptionally dry winter. In fact, it is necessary to go back forty-seven years before finding a parallel. Whereas the normal average of rain all over England and Wales is 35.23 inches, the total rain that fell for the year ending March, 1934, was only 25.9 inches. The water undertakers, who rely largely on the winter rains to see them through the summer, usually find that their reservoirs are full by this time of the year, if not long before, but this year, in many of them, they have less than half their normal reserves. These reserves have indeed now fallen to a level which cannot be considered safe for future eventualities even if the economies which the undertakers are able to enforce are put into full effect. Added to this, many of the wells (which should, of course, at this time of the year be rising) are even falling, and additional supplies must be somehow obtained.
Now it is perfectly true that water undertakers, as a whole, should be prepared for drought, but I think we can have few complaints against the water undertakers because, although the drought has been in progress for some time, their reserves have so far stood up to the strain extremely well. If water undertakers had reserves sufficient to cope with really exceptional droughts, they would have to spend so much money on providing those reserves that it would 1019 affect appreciably the cost of water not only in dry years but in wet years. I am speaking of the more highly organised water undertakers. I am not saying that the permanent reserves in rural areas are sufficient, because in many cases they do not exist at all. We quite admitted that situation and it was dealt with by the Rural Water Supplies Act, which recently passed your Lordships' House.
Of course it is also true that water undertakers have power to insist on economies in consumption, and they can do a great deal with the co-operation of the public. I understand that economies of as much as 20 to 30 per cent. have been affected by intelligent co-operation between undertakers and the public in such matters as waste, unnecessary consumption and so forth. The Government desire to encourage this co-operation, and it is not the intention of the Ministry that any undertakers should have the benefit of these special measures unless they have shown that they have done what they can under the existing law, not only by effecting economies but by securing additional supplies by voluntary arrangements. But of course there are various matters an interruption in which would be very unfortunate, such, for instance, as the general industrial and commercial activities of the country. Waste may occur in industry as in domestic consumption, but of course it would be very regrettable if at the present stage of industrial revival there were any check through water shortage.
Turning to the clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 gives the Minister power to proceed by Order. The object of that procedure is to ensure that situations as they arise should be met at once. So far as is compatible with expedition, property owners' interests and other interests will be safeguarded. Publicity must be given, and local inquiries will be held where necessary. The Minister will in all cases do what he can to try to encourage local authorities to proceed by agreement, and it is hoped that Orders will be implemented only if the normal processes have been tried and have not proved sufficient. But the Government have come to the conclusion that if an Order is once made, it must stand. They cannot agree that it would be desirable to make these Orders subject to alteration and repeal by Parliament, because if 1020 there were a risk that an Order would be repealed by Parliament the undertakers could hardly be expected to initiate works until the Order had gone through Parliament, and thus of course the advantages of despatch would be lost.
These Orders may enable local authorities and undertakers to take water from a specified source which in normal circumstances they would only be allowed to do by Private Act or Provisional Order. The Order may suspend or modify any restriction or obligation to which the undertakers are subject. Examples of such obligations are the obligation to discharge a specified amount of water back into a stream from which it was taken further up, or the obligation to maintain a specified flow in a stream; restrictions on the particular reservoirs from which certain specified areas are supplied, and restrictions regarding the pressure at which water must be supplied. Then also as regards filtration, certain Acts of Parliament require water undertakers to supply water filtered in specified ways, whereas under modern chlorination methods the same effect can be produced much more expeditiously and equally effectually. An Order under this Bill may also make compulsory the supply in bulk of water by one authority to another. Recently we passed a Bill permitting this procedure, but although that is fully sufficient for ordinary purposes, it may he necessary during this emergency to go some way beyond the principle of the Supply of Water in Bulk Bill. Orders may add to the powers of compulsory rationing now exercised by undertakers both as regards the consumers and the supply from which the water is derived.
Of course this Bill recognises that if exceptional powers are given there must be some exceptional protection for the consumers and other interested persons, and in Clause 1, subsection (3), there are provisions to enforce repayment of sums which consumers have paid in advance for services of which they are or may be deprived by an Order. There is also protection for navigation authorities, so that if water is taken from the streams which feed the canals for the purpose of domestic supplies, then the navigation authorities shall be relieved of their statutory obligations which they are unable to discharge. In subsection (5) 1021 of Clause 1 your Lordships will notice that an Order can only have effect for six months, but other Orders may follow the first, although the whole Bill automatically comes to an end in December, 1935. There is an exception to that general provision in Clause 3 to which I will refer in a moment. Clause 2 enables undertakers to exercise the powers conferred upon them more expeditiously than it is permissible for them to do under the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847. Again, we agree that this would only be justifiable in exceptional circumstance, but it is necessary, if you are going to have emergency legislation, that you should provide machinery to enable it to be carried out rapidly.
In regard to Clause 3, the Government feel that there may be cases where relief can best be provided by works of a somewhat more permanent character where it would be really wasteful to make an Order which would only last for a little over a year. Examples of such cases would be where the best way of supplying the water would be by the digging of a new well. It would really be hardly reasonable to expect undertakers to sink capital in a new well if this well could be used only for a short time, so in Clause 3 we provide for this. But it will be noticed that the conditions under which these permanent. works will be executed are so rigorous that there is little danger of their being abused. I would particularly point out that permanent works under this clause can only be constructed in connection with subsection (1) (a) of Clause 1, which refers to these sources of supply.
Lastly I will refer to the question of notices. In the Schedule your Lordships will have seen that owners and other undertakers must be notified in writing. These notices must be inserted in the local Press, and in certain cases in the London Gazette. With the complex systems of water supplies now in operation, the Minister recognises that the list in the Schedule is by no means complete and does not cover all persons interested. But we cannot overload the machinery of the Bill by making it compulsory to serve notices on a long list of people. What the Minister has undertaken to do is to consult in regard to all applications with the Ministry of Agriculture, who 1022 will represent the interests of the catchment boards, and with the Ministry of Transport do regard to navigation authorities. I think I have nothing more to add. Since the Bill was first introduced the rain which has fallen has eased the situation to some extent, but unfortunately not to the extent of making it unnecessary to lay this Bill before Parliament. I beg to move.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Gage has stated, this Bill is of a purely temporary character, and he emphasised the temporary nature of its provisions. He also stated that it is to meet a sudden, unexpected and, I think, unprecedented emergency; for although there may have been an equal shortage of water some seventy or eighty years ago, there were not so many people in the country to use the water, and I think the people of those days did not use quite so much water per head as we do now, so flat the emergency which has arisen is indeed quite unprecedented. Lord Gage has told us that the recent falls of rain have been satisfactory to a certain degree, and therefore perhaps it will not be necessary to make use of these provisions in their entirety, and at any rate the Bill comes to an end on December 31, 1935.
Had it not been for this I should have felt it my duty to call your Lordships' serious attention to the proposals to extend the powers of the Executive, which I do not think have ever been made of such an extensive character before in the whole history of Parliament. I do not wish to detain your Lordships by considering the clauses of the Bill which have a purely temporary effect, but I do venture to call your attention to Clause 3, which gives power to authorise the taking of water for an indefinite period, and the purchase of land. Under subsection (7) the purchase of land for this purpose may be compulsory. I think Lord Gage has explained to your Lordships the necessity for this clause. Of course it would be impossible in certain circumstances to provide against water famine without boring and other works, and if so you must acquire land in which to sink your wells. Therefore you must have a provision 1023 of this kind to enable you to take the steps which Clause 3 contemplates. I would point out, however, that every attempt has been made to safeguard the public, and if your Lordships will study subsection (1) of Clause 3 you will, I hope, be satisfied that the safeguards are effective.
There is only one other point to which I would like to direct attention, and that is that this Bill, as Lord Gage has pointed out, makes the Minister of Health entirely independent of Parliament. The Orders that he makes will not be laid before Parliament, or even laid on the Table, not that that would give your Lordships any safeguard if done. We have had many discussions in this House about the Henry VIII clause, but I think this goes a bit further. It seems to me, however, quite impossible to avoid a provision of this character. Perhaps if Parliament were to sit from January 1 to December 31 it would be possible to bring the Orders before Parliament and secure the ordinary Special Order procedure, but in view of the Recess, when Parliament is not sitting, I think this would be out of the question, because, of course, the essence of satisfactory action in emergencies is speed, and you could not acquire the necessary speed if you have to wait, possibly until November, before you got your powers. Therefore I do not think there is any possible alternative to the proposals in the Bill. We have been told by my noble friend that the Bill is of a temporary character, and to meet emergencies. On those grounds I strongly recommend your Lordships to agree to it, although I would emphasise the fact very strongly that I hope your Lordships will recognise that this is a purely temporary measure to meet an unprecedented emergency.

VISCOUNT GAGE
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I am very grateful to the Lord Chairman for his support of the Bill, and I can assure him that he will have no reason to complain of the bureaucracy of which he has again so rightly warned us.