Lords Sitting of 4 June 1945

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Plunket—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

ENNERDALE GAS ORDER, 1945.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the first Resolution standing in my name be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLEARING OFFICE (TURKEY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1945.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the next Resolution standing in my name be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) ORDER, 1945.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION (No.2) REGULATIONS, 1945.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the other Motion standing in my name.
Moved., That the Special Order, as reported prom the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WATER BILL.
2.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Duty of Minister in relation to water.
1. It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Minister"), to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources and the provision of water supplies in England and Wales and to secure the effective execution by water undertakers, under his control and direction, of a national policy relating to water.
LORE STRABOLGI LORE STRABOLGI moved, after "Wales," to insert "to prevent the pollution of water supplies." The noble Lord said: This Amendment follows on the speech made by my noble friend Lord Addison on the Second Reading of this very important Bill, when my noble friend drew attention to the growing evil of pollution and contamination of rivers. Although it may be the intention of His Majesty's Government that the Minister, amongst his duties, shall have that of preventing, checking, prohibiting or putting a stop to pollution of water supplies, it does not actually say so. The first clause says it shall be the duty of Minister "to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources and the provision of water supplies," but nothing about seeing that the water is pure. I am
306
sure your Lordships will agree with me that this is a very important matter and it might be made a little more clear if the Government could see their way to accept my Amendment.
In this matter I am speaking for thousands of farmers whose cattle and stocks are dependent on rivers for their drinking water. If the water is contaminated the stock sickens and great harm is done to the whole industry of husbandry. Secondly, I am speaking for the angling fraternity. There are not only wealthy anglers; I am speaking for, I suppose, a hundred thousand fishermen the great majority of whom are artisans and working men. These form a most reputable and respectable body of people, who do no harm to anyone, who nearly always are good citizens and good fathers, and who are, in spite of the legends to the contrary, as truthful as any other section of the community. When a river or canal is contaminated by carelessness the fish are killed and these poor fellows are deprived of their harmless recreation. Also in these hard times the supply of freshwater fish is not by any means to be despised as a means of increasing the food supplies of the nation. If our rivers were properly looked after, stocked and conserved, I believe the food supply could be greatly increased. In any case the supply of freshwater fish is valuable and useful.
Now under the Bill the duty of preventing pollution of rivers and other water supplies is, as before, laid on various local bodies, boards of conservators, and so on. The truth of the matter is that these people have not the powers or the money in these days to prevent pollution. On Friday last I was talking to a very experienced member of the Hampshire river conservators who told me that both the Test—a very valuable river from the point of view of the farmer and of the supply of fish—and the Avon have been badly contaminated. They are two very famous Hampshire rivers. In both cases analyses have been taken of the water, which has been found to be less pure than it has been within living memory, with very bad results for both farmers and fishermen. The board of conservators have not much money, they have not much power, they do not want to make trouble and they really are no: the best people to proceed against those

307
who are responsible for polluting the rivers. Sometimes the war factories are responsible, and I suppose that that was inevitable. There would be a good deal of pollution in various parts of the country as a result of these new industries which have been established for war purposes. Partly also it is due to the growth of population and the neglect of local authorities— perhaps not through their own fault again but through war conditions— to provide drainage and sewage disposal plants. But the net result is that a great many rivers in this country are in a worse state than they have been for generations.
Last year, as the noble Earl no doubt knows, the Kennet, a very important river, was badly poisoned. The farms suffered very much. The farmers had to keep their cattle away from the water and thousands and thousands of prime fish, which would be very welcome at the present time, were made unfit for food. I have only given three examples, the rivers Test, Avon and Kennet. If the Minister would accept responsibility for this matter his inspectors could go about the country. He has his representatives and in any case they could trace cases of contamination and pollution and then take action on behalf of the Crown. That is a very different story from a local board of conservators proceeding against some wealthy and powerful manufacturing company, say a brewery, which may be poisoning the water. I think that explains the object of my Amendment. I am sure it has the sympathy of the noble Earl and the Government and I hope of all your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 1o, after ("Wales") insert ("to prevent the pollution of water supplies").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved this Amendment is quite correct in saying that the insertion of the words which he proposes has the sympathy of His Majesty's Government. I do not disagree with the views he has expressed. As the noble Lord pointed out, the purpose of the Amendment is to add to the Minister's functions under this Bill the general duty of preventing the pollution of water supplies. There are, I am advised, a number of separate Acts dealing with pollution and its prevention. There are the River Pollution Prevention Acts of
308
1876 and 1893, the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act of 1923, and the Public Health and Drainage of Trade Premises Act, 1937. There is also a projected Bill, as my noble friend is probably aware, to set up river boards. I think that Bill will be the place at which to raise the Minister's position as regards the pollution of water supplies. The occasion for such a thing to be done will be when the general question of pollution is before Parliament. The Bill to which I have just referred will amend the general law with regard to pollution.
It is quite true that this Bill in certain clauses does touch upon the question of pollution, but it does so primarily in relation to the duty of public undertakers to prevent the pollution of any water, whether surface or underground, which belongs to them or which they are authorized to take. The Minister's duty in the Bill is to see that the water undertakers exercise their powers and perform their duties in this particular respect. That is already covered by the words "to secure the effective execution by water undertakers, under his control and direction, of a national policy relating to water." I think I have said enough to show my noble friend that I am not wholly against the proposal in his Amendment but it would not be possible to insert the words in this Bill. It would in fact be proper that these words, or words to a similar effect, should be inserted in the River Boards Bill which I hope will come along in the new Session. For these reasons I hope my noble friend will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his sympathetic reply. Do I understand that the River Boards Bill is already drafted? If not, perhaps it could be considered whether these words, or similar words, could be inserted in it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am not at all certain whether the Bill has been drafted, but I will convey the noble Lord's suggestion to the appropriate quarter.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged and wish, by leave, to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 14 agreed to.
2.15 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
"If any statutory water undertakers by reason of toe construction of any well, borehole or other similar work or the extension of any existing well, borehole or other similar work, interrupt, or diminish the supply of water in use upon y neighbouring land (including any supply derived from a well or borehole and whether or not flowing in any defined channel) the statutory undertakers shall make provision for alternative supplies or pay full compensation to all parties interested for all damage sustained by them by reason of such interruption or diminishment of such water supply as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: The point I venture to put before your Lordships is really an extremely simple one. It was referred to during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. It is this. A company or any water authority is entitled to enter into an area and sink bores or wells and thereby, it may well be, extract the total water supply that is available in that area. It may be that there is a whole community dependent on its own wells and in consequence of what is done the water supply of that community may recede. I mentioned on Second Reading the question of the watercress industry, but in fact it tray well happen that a whole village community of a few hundred souls may be deprived in this way of their water supply. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 14 you will see that by this clause they are deprived of any possibility of protecting themselves. At the present time, under the law as I read it, they have at least a possible means of protecting themselves—I do not say it is a satisfactory one— by sinking new wells, probably at a much greater depth. But under Clause 14 they are deprived even of that right, because the Minister is now in a position of being able to make an order prohibiting the sinking of any alternative borehole or wells whatsoever. They have no redress at all, if they are deprived of an existing right, of going over to an alternative, and have no right to be given another supply of water nor yet of being paid compensation. I suggest to your Lordships and to His Majesty's Government that this is a matter which requires consideration. It may be that the words of my Amendment are not the best way of dealing with the problem, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that there is a very real
310
problem and one to which it is right to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government and ask them to see to it before this Bill is passed that this undoubted grievance is put right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD SALTOUN: Before saying anything in support of the noble Earl's Amendment, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to say what a pleasure it is to me that His Majesty's Government have seen fit to strengthen themselves by the addition of a young and distinguished kinsman of mine. I live in the country where the water supplies are scanty and capricious and I find among the country people, who are generally well up in the Common Law of the land, a theory that under the Common Law every man has a right to the waters that arise on his own land. I am bound to say that I feel a great deal of anxiety when that principle is threatened. Moreover, in the case where the Minister did not prohibit competition with the statutory undertaker, I think that an affected village would soon witness what I call a well race. I am bound to say that any private person who engages in a well race with a statutory undertaker will have a very difficult task ahead of him. I hope therefore His Majesty's Government will consider this Amendment very carefully.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think this is a matter which requires careful consideration. My justification for saying anything about it is that I have been concerned with a number of cases relating to similar matters, where water has been abstracted with very serious consequences. Your Lordships are no doubt aware that as the law stands, and until this Bill shall pass, there is no right to complain of the abstraction of water even by your nearest neighbour if in doing so he only interferes with water in an undefined channel. There have been many cases in which that has been enforced by order of the court. In other words, if there is a definite channel through which water flows you have a right, but if the channel is undefined you have not a right.
One observation that arises on this proposed Amendment— my noble friend with his usual candour says he is not wedded to the precise language of the Amendment— is that as the Amendment stands it

311
looks as if when a water undertaker constructs a well, borehole or other similar work, and some person in the neighbourhood conceives that his supply of water has been diminished, he will bring an action and will apparently be entitled to bring an action, although it may be that in fact the amount of abstraction or the diminution of supply has been exceedingly doubtful or very trivial. Although I have not had the opportunity of discussing it with the noble Earl, what I think would be a reasonable clause and one which might prevent a great deal of heartburn and trouble would be a clause so worded that it applied to cases where interruption or diminution was established. In other words, I should provide that "if it is established" that any statutory water undertakers have interrupted or diminished a supply of water—the words "have interrupted" would come in instead of "interrupt"—"whether or not flowing in any defined channel," and so on, statutory undertakers shall make provision for alternative supplies or shall pay (or be liable to pay, it should be) full compensation to all parties interested for such damage.
Such a clause would have the effect that it would apply only in the somewhat unusual cases in which you could prove your case and in which you were bound to prove your case. That might be some years after the damage had been done. Your Lordships know perfectly well— the White Paper on which this Bill is founded explains it with clarity— that you cannot tell the effect of a boring or anything of that sort at the time it is done, or even a year after it is done, because the amount of water supply is affected so much by the rainfall. Scientific people tell us that it has been known that it is not until three years after a particular operation which ultimately affects the supply of water in the neighbourhood that the effect of it is noted, observed, proved and the cause of it established. If the interference which Clause 14 contemplates is confined to known channels, it seems to me perfectly clear that the undertakers would then be liable, but I go further in support of my noble friend and say that the right of action should apply also to cases where water has come through unknown channels if it is established that the result of it has been to dry up a well or make a
312
stream cease to flow, or there has been some other, it may be, terrible effect on the neighbourhood of the operations of the undertaker in question.
Therefore I strongly urge on the Government, if they want to prevent a feeling of injustice to any people who are concerned with streams and wells, where the water supply, it may be for many years, has rested simply on these sources of supply, that they should accept either this clause or some other clause which will make water undertakers aware when they embark on some major operation under Clause 14 that they will have to compensate the persons who prove beyond a peradventure that they are damaged by what has been done.
2.26 p.m.
The EARL OF MUNSTER: The object of this Amendment, as clearly stated by the noble Lords who have spoken, is to require statutory undertakers to make provision for alternative supplies or pay compensation to the interested parties where, as a result of the abstraction of underground water by a borehole or new well, or the extension of an existing well or an existing borehole, the supply obtainable on neighbouring land is interrupted or diminished. I think it is clear to your Lordships that this proposed new clause is a matter of some importance, and perhaps therefore you will bear with me if I deal with the subject at considerable length.
I have no wish whatever to cross swords with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, who has expressed to your Lordships his views upon the Common Law of England, but as I understood the remarks made by the noble and learned Viscount he was in point of fact supporting Clause 14 as it stands in the Bill at the present time. I am informed that under the Common Law of England every owner of land is entitled to take any underground water under his land which is not flowing in a defined channel; that is unless he or his predecessors have parted with this natural and normal Common Law right. He can, I understand, do exactly what he likes with it. He can abstract the water for his own personal use or for business use; he can sell or dispose of it; he can even open up and waste a flow of water which he does not require. I think normally there is enough water to provide for many wells without serious damage to

313
any, but is true that in some parts of the country, where underground water forms one of the main sources of supply for all purposes, this unfettered right has often led to competitive boring or waste of water. South Lincolnshire provides a well-known example of the difficulties likely to arise in a critical area.
The Common Law is, of course, the same in critical areas as in any other part of the country. Any one dependent on boreholes or wells for his supply has no remedy whatever if the activities of the neighbouring landlord result in interruption or in diminution of his yield of water. Statutory water undertakers, whether local authorities or companies, might be expected to have as landowners the same right as other landowners and at the same time be subject to precisely the same disabilities. But, in fact, as creatures of Statute, they are quite unable to exercise the ordinary right of a landowner to sink wells on their own land. To do that, they have got so have the express authority of the Minister of Health or of Parliament, and that authority is given not generally but only in relation to a well on a specified piece of land. The result, clearly, is that where the statutory water undertakers propose to sink boreholes or wells to abstract underground water from their land, there is an opportunity for objections to be made by all those who fear that they may be detrimentally affected.
On the other hand, the statutory water undertakers, on whom an enormous number of people are solely dependent, both for domestic water and trade water supplies, have, in general, no protection whatever against any unreasonable exercise by the adjoining landowners of their unfettered Common Law rights. I think it is true to say— and I think that it was, perhaps, suggested here to-day— that this has long been felt to be quite indefensible in areas where underground water is the main source of supply for all purposes, particularly in those areas where the strata are such that wells can affect each other's water over a considerable distance, and the total water resources are limited in relationship to the prospective demand.
To meet the problem, the Central Advisory Water Committee, under the Chairmanship, as your Lordships well know, of Lord Milne, recommended in
314
their first report, which was published in 1938, a measure of general control by licensing, in such critical areas, and on those recommendations Clause 14 of this Bill has, in point of fact, been drafted. Moreover, the White Paper published by the Government some time ago showed our intention in this matter quite clearly. That White Paper was published in April, 1944. Now this proposed new clause, which has been moved by the noble Earl, takes no regard of this system of control, but it does seek to perpetuate, and even to increase, the disabilities of the statutory water undertakers which I have just endeavoured to describe. In fact, it does intend to alter the whole of the Common Law on this matter in this country, but not for all alike— which would be understandable, though indeed a very big issue to raise at this stage— against the statutory water undertakers alone. It would, I am advised, compel them, and them alone, amongst owners of land, to pay compensation or to provide for alternative supplies where, for instance, the result of pumping from a new well, a newly extended well or a borehole, was to reduce the yield of water from some neighbouring well or borehole.
This, it seems to me, is a wide general obligation, and one which Parliament has never put upon water undertakers in all the very many hundreds of local Acts which have been passed from time to time in the House of Lords. It seems to me quite indefensible that such a general obligation should now be placed on statutory water undertakers everywhere in England and in Wales, and that no complementary obligation should be put on near-by landowners to compensate and provide for alternative supplies for statutory water undertakers where the yield from their wells might be interrupted or diminished by the activities not of themselves but of others. It is true to say that what Parliament has sometimes done is to include in local legislation in special circumstances, and in special circumstances only, and on shown cause, a protective provision limited to the specified zone of the water undertaker's well and its neighbourhood. This, usually, I am informed, does confer certain rights, on proof of damage, on owners of existing wells within a specified distance of the new well. There is an example of

315
this kind of clause in the East Worcestershire Water Act, 1941.
In the critical areas, which are areas such as I have described, in Lincolnshire, where underground water forms the main source of supply for practically every purpose, it is, I think, usually recognized that the general abstraction of underground water by all persons should be controlled in the interests of all those persons in such an area as that which would, probably, and properly, form the subject of a Provisional Order under Clause 14 of the Bill, and the system of licences would afterwards come into operation, in conjunction, in the case of water undertakers, with the authorization of works by statutory, orders so as to have regard to the general good, and riot to favour one or other sectional interest, whether public water supplies or not. The Milne Committee took the view that it would be impracticable to provide for compensation in respect of any control so imposed on all alike in these particular critical areas. In such areas and in the rest of the country where no such controls may be in operation, the Bill is designed to secure— through the provisions of the First Schedule to the Bill— the fullest publicity for the proposals of the statutory water undertakings, the widest possible opportunity for objection, and for the holding of local inquiries when the undertakers apply for the Order of the Minister under Clause 23 of the Bill.
This procedure, it seems to me, will enable all the facts of the particular cases to be brought out, and evidence to be given with regard to arty possible or probable interference which may be caused with the neighbouring supplies of a particular owner of a portion of land, and will enable all those liable to be affected to ask for the protection before the works are constructed. My right honourable friend will be willing, and indeed would feel hound, to consider on individual cases what is the proper and fair arrangement for all the interested parties concerned; and, on the facts shown to him, he will include in the Order authorizing the work suitable provisions to safeguard other interests on the same lines as Parliament has done in the case of some local Acts. In other cases, if necessary, he might include a provision for compensation in water; I think he would be against cash
316
compensation. I would not go so far as to say that cash compensation would never be appropriate, but each case must be dealt with on the facts and on the merits.
I apologize for delaying the Committee for so long, but let me attempt to sum up what I have endeavoured to establish. To make drastic changes today in the existing Common Law, as this Amendment endeavours to do, and to deal with rights in underground water in the one-sided way which is proposed, would, in our opinion, be unfortunate and a mistake, when there are practicable methods of control in critical areas such as are described in Clause 14 of the Bill and the safeguards which are provided under the procedure in the First Schedule. The proper way to deal with these matters is that which I have just described. My right honourable friend feels strongly that the proper method is to consider each case on its merits and to give a licence or make an Order dealing with that particular case. I hope that, for the reasons which I have given to the Committee, the noble Earl will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: Will the noble Earl be good enough to answer one specific question? Let us assume that there are twenty cottages all dependent on shallow wells. A scheme is carried out in the district, and all those wells dry up. What will be the position and the rights of those cottagers? I am assuming that the Minister is right in allowing the scheme in the general public interest. He is appealed to, and he rightly allows the scheme to go through; but unfortunately those twenty cottages are deprived of their water-supply. What would be their position?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Off-hand, I cannot tell the noble Earl; but he will observe that, if they are deprived of their water-supply, they must have been deprived of it for some reason, and the reason why they have been deprived of it is, as I understand his argument, that the statutory water undertakers have come along and taken their water. I am afraid that my noble friend has not read the proposals in the First Schedule. Those cottagers would be the first people to lodge an objection with the Minister against the proposal of the statutory water undertakers to sink wells or bore

317
shafts to obtain water, and take the water supply away from them.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think that the noble Earl can have heard the whole of my question. I am assuming that they did lodge a complaint.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Then the Minister will consider it.
EARL DE LA WARR: That will not give them any water. It may well be that if the noble Earl or I or any one of us were the Minister, one would, in the general interest, feel compelled to allow the scheme to go through, but that will not give these people water, nor will they have information before the scheme goes through that in fact their wells are going to dry up.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: But they will have an opportunity of knowing that a scheme will operate in their district. I think that the noble Earl will agree with me that, when they have lodged their objection to the Minister, he will decide, and I cannot tell the noble Earl on a hypothetical case whether the Minister will or will not take action. When a case is put up it will be considered.
2.45 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: I would point out that it is often a considerable time before a shortage such as has been described takes effect. Under those conditions, I think that the noble Earl has not covered the case which has been put to the Committee.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The noble Earl who speaks for the Government is so persuasive that he is very often difficult to deal with; but, as my noble friend has just said, it is often going to take a considerable time before we know whether such a disaster take place. There may be three or four wet years in which there will be no result, and then will come the disaster. I am well aware that that is probably a reason for refusing this Amendment, because it is going to be so difficult in law to establish the fact that there has been this loss of water; but I do not think that the noble Earl who replied for the Government is quite accurate when he says that the only people singled out are the statutory water undertakers. If you read Cause 14 you will find that those who allow water to go to waste are liable to
318
get into trouble, and there the existing water owners are being penalized on another score, so that the proposed penalization of the water undertakers is in line with that of others who are to be penalized for wasting their existing water.
After all, the new water undertakings envisaged by the Bill will be almost entirely statutory water undertakings because it is necessary to get a licence to bore otherwise, and they are the people who are most likely to use water and ultimately to waste it. It is almost inevitable that we shall -start with a small scheme, perhaps 10,000 gallons a day, which may affect nobody; but by the time that people have put in bathrooms and a small garden suburb has sprung up, there may be 100,000 or 200,000 gallons a day being used, and that will be the time when the water undertaking will deprive other people of their water rights and start drying up the underground water-table.
I do not believe that this Amendment will work in practice. Nevertheless, I still strongly support it, because I believe that it will be a deterrent. If local statutory water undertakers are going to be faced with the possibility that, if they bore unfairly to their neighbours, they will have a large case on their hands, they are not going to go for the easiest and most available form of water, which may destroy the underground water-tables of the countryside; they are going to think again and go for slightly more expensive originally, but far more sensible ultimately, forms of water usage, and use waste water by purification; bringing it back to the land, where it is badly needed. I strongly support the Amendment, there fore, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Munster has said. I believe that we shall need all the time we can get to learn about underground water supplies, about which we know very little at the moment. If this Amendment acts as a deterrent to statutory water undertakers from the irresponsible use of water, I think it will have achieved its object.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I have no desire whatever to delay the proceedings of the Committee, but I think that the noble Earl who has just spoken has not really read through the whole Bill, if he will forgive me for saying so. Under Clause 14, which deals with critical areas, everybody is subject to licence, including

319
the water undertakers; but, in spite of that, the water undertakers must not only get a licence, like everybody else, to bore for water, but also an Order made under Clause 23 of the Bill to authorize them "to construct, acquire by agreement, alter or continue…waterworks and works connected therewith." It seems to me that the cottages to which the noble Earl referred are amply protected by Clause 23. Further, I think that the noble Earl will forgive me for saying that he seems to have missed Clauses 28 and 29, which make it a duty resting on owners to provide water in pipes whenever possible, so that the Minister will consider carefully whether it was possible for the owners of those particular cottages to provide piped water, as is their obligation under Clauses 28 and 29.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am very loth to speak again, but we have heard a great deal about the Common Law from my noble friend who speaks for the Government here.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: And from you.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Not so much from me, but I want to say this. It is true that in the Common Law of England you may dig on your own ground and ruin your neighbour by abstracting his water, but how has that grown up? It has grown up from an age when there were very few houses in this country, and when water was not the necessity that it is now. There was very little provision for baths, and very little for washing up of dishes for food, and very little, in fact, for all the uses to which water is now put; and, after all, if we are doing something to prevent injustice by the deprivation of water is it a drastic alteration of the Common Law? It was not decided, until the case of the Corporation of Bradford, in which a gentleman named Pickles was concerned, that you could take away the water by sinking wells on your own ground in order to get the corporation to buy you out. Instead of the country, or the lawyers as a whole, thinking that that was a glorious proof of the justice of the Common Law, every one I have ever met considered it was a monstrous abuse, and a thing which ought not to be allowed.
I cannot believe that it will generally be considered to be a dreadful thing that
320
when people are given special rights under this Bill, under Clauses 23 and 28, and so far under Clause 14, they should not seriously interfere with the water supply of the neighbouring area without giving compensation. Where the noble Earl is wrong in his argument that you have a right to appear before the Minister and ask for a provision as a condition of the licence for the work to be done, is that lie does not realize that when you get before the Minister with a claim, where a well has been sunk and any major operation for removing water has been effected, it is impossible to prove that damage will occur by what is being done except in the rarest of cases. You are helpless when you get before the Minister and it is only the lapse of time which will establish that your houses are worthless and ruined.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Do I understand that the water undertakers should have the obligation of paying compensation or giving an alternative supply of water for ever?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: You certainly ought not to understand that. If your water has been taken away you should have a reasonable opportunity of going to the Minister, if the clause takes one form, or to the court, if it takes another. If anyone is doubtful as to what is a reasonable time, you could put in a five-year or a six-year limit. I do not believe that less than a five-year limit would be fair. If you show that in wet seasons and in dry your water supply has dried up and you can no longer carry on your business, I cannot see that anything exists which ought to prevent you getting compensation.
LORD SALTOUN: It has been the invariable practice to assess what compensation is needed. Clause 28 refers to a supply of water for houses and schools, but it says nothing about farms.
2.54 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think it is necessary to trouble your Lordships with very much more as to the propriety of inserting this Amendment or something in the way of amended wording. I cannot help commenting on one of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Munster, in accusing me of not reading Clauses 28 and 29, which provide that owners shall

321
if possible lay down a water supply. If I may say so that is a most appropriate provision. I thank Lord Maugham for what he has said on the subject of the Common Law. I always understood that it was the function of most legislation to alter the law of the land, whether it be the Common Law or some other law. So far as I see it, my Amendment only alters the Common Law in so far as it compensates the private individual for the loss to which he is being submitted of a right that he already has under the Common Law. They have the right to practise this at the moment. This Bill is depriving them of that right, and I am endeavouring to get some compensation inserted in the Bill for that purpose.
With the approval of your Lordships, I should like to move my Amendment in a slightly different form, in the light of the suggestions made by Lord Maugham. It seemed to me a valid criticism of the Amendment as I had framed it that it would be difficult to administer, and might cause a great deal of litigation, to decide whether damage had been done or not. I would ask leave to move the Amendment in the following form:
"If it is established in the opinion of the Minister within a reasonable period that any statutory water undertakers by reason of the construction of any well, borehole or other similar work, or the extension of any existing well, borehole or other similar work, have interrupted or diminished the supply of water in use upon any neighbouring land (including any supply derived from a well or borehole and whether or not flowing in any defined channel) the statutory undertakers shall be liable to make provision for alternative supplies or pay full compensation to all parties interested for all damage sustained by them by reason of such interruption or diminishment of such water supply as aforesaid."
I would suggest to the noble Earl that he should accept that Amendment, it being clearly understood that he and his advisers should examine it before the Report stage with regard to any necessary drafting alterations. I beg to move.
Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 17 line 6, insert as a new clause:
"If it is established in the opinion of the Minister within a reasonable period that any statutory water undertakers by reason of the construction of any well, borehole or other similar work, or the extension of any existing well, borehole or other similar work, have interrupted or diminished the supply of water in
322
use upon any neighbouring land (including any supply derived from a well or borehole and whether or not flowing in any defined channel), the statutory undertakers shall be liable to make provision for alternative supplies or pay full compensation to all parties interested for all damage sustained by them by reason of such interruption or diminishment of such water supply as aforesaid."—(Earl De La Warr.)
3.1 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): I am at a serious disadvantage because, being engaged on other public business, I have only been here for the last few minutes of this discussion. I must beg forgiveness, therefore, if I have not precisely understood the situation in which we stand at this moment, but I gather that the Lord Chairman is putting to the House, no doubt most properly, an Amendment which is not the Amendment on the Paper, and that there are manuscript changes, apparently changes rather difficult to read, of which the noble Earl has been good enough to inform us by word of mouth. I must confess— perhaps it is because I have not been here all the time— that I really do not understand, and I very much doubt whether a great many other noble Lords understand, precisely what it is we are asked to vote for. Surely the least the Government can ask is that they should be given reasonable time to consider the Amendment in the new form.
I was able to hear the end of my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham's speech with reference to propositions of law, but obviously this is much more than a lawyer's dispute; it involves enormous public interests. It is not, of course, the usual practice of this House to play ducks and drakes with these enormous public interests. But this may put fearful burdens upon various public authorities, and it is being done by an Amendment partly in manuscript which I will be bound to say the majority of members in this House do not understand. I should hope that your Lordships will not be prepared at this stage to accept this combination of words. Anyhow, that is not the way in which we ought to proceed and I would ask my noble friend— who spoke most persuasively, I am sure, on the merits of his proposal— and others who sympathize with him to recognize that the right course is not to put in this Amendment here on the Committee stage, but on the contrary, to have it put down in

323
its proper form when it can be dealt with on Report.
EARL DE LA WARR: With all deference to the noble and learned Viscount, I understand that I am in perfect order in moving an Amendment slightly amended to suit the needs of the debate. The Amendment to my Amendment was put before your Lordships extremely clearly by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and I simply adopted his words. The principle of the discussion we have had is extremely clear, as, I suggest, is the nature of the Amendment, and therefore I would ask your Lordships to support me in pressing this Amendment on His Majesty's Government; it being perfectly clearly understood that there is a Report stage coming in the future, when it will be possible for His Majesty's Government to move any drafting Amendments if they so desire.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: In view of what my noble friend has said, I should not like him to be under any misapprehension. He said there is a Report stage coming. If there are no Amendments accepted there will not be any Report stage.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Lord Chancellor will perhaps have another opportunity.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): On Third Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was technically inaccurate. There is an opportunity of putting Amendments in on the Third Reading.
LORD WOOLTON: I hope the noble Earl will let this go. I hope I am not going to annoy any of your Lordships, but I am extremely anxious to get this Bill. I make no disguise of the fact that I do not like the speed with which, during this next week or ten days, we are passing legislation; that, your Lordships will agree, is something which at any rate we did not want. But here are the facts. This Bill is something of very great importance. When I brought in the White Paper and spoke on the matter your Lordships gave it very warm support and I know that you all want the main principles of this Bill to be carried into law. I am afraid— and it is obvious to your
324
Lordships that I am not using any threatening language when I say this— that if we pass substantial Amendments that have already been discussed in another place—
EARL DE LA WARR: This has not been.
LORD WOOLTON: I am very anxious to make the position on this issue quite clear. If we pass substantial Amendments, or Amendments that have been discussed in another place, then the Parliamentary time available in another place will not make it possible for us to get this Bill. Therefore, much as I dislike the rush and the hurry, I am rather anxious to preserve this somewhat precious Bill. If the noble Earl will be good enough to let this go now we will look at it on the Third Reading. I make no promises without consultation with the Minister or consideration of the state of Parliamentary business in another place. It may be that subsequent legislation will have to be introduced, but I hope your Lordships will do your best to let us have this Bill to-day.
EARL DE LA WARR: When the Leader of the House makes an appeal, and particularly during these very difficult times, one is most anxious to fall in with his request. Unfortunately this is a matter of vital importance, possibly to quite small communities, but it is in order to help these small and important communities that this Bill is specifically put before us. I do feel that we shall be doing a great disservice to many people in the countryside if we let this Bill go through in its present form. The noble Lord has suggested that we may possibly lose this Bill if it has a major Amendment or an Amendment dealing with a subject that has been discussed in another place. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that, in fact, although important and dealing with an important matter, this is not a major Amendment, and that if it were put before the House of Commons as an Amendment accepted by the Government it might take possibly half a minute of time there. With regard to the other point, this has not been discussed in another place. It was in fact put down by a member on behalf of the Farmers' Union, who was unfortunately ill, and therefore it was not even considered. Those are the two points the noble Lord

325
put to us. I suggest to your Lordships that neither of them is valid, and therefore that we should press forward with this Amendment.
Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clauses 15 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Power of statutory water undertakers to acquire land by agreement or compulsorily.
(7) A compulsory purchase order made under this section may authorize the purchase of any land belonging to the National Trust notwithstanding that such land is held by the Trust inalienably, but where any such order authorizes the acquisition of land so held inalienably or of any land forming part of a common, open space or allotment, the order shall, subject to the next following subsection, be provisional only and not have effect until it is confirmed by Parliament.
(8) So much of the last foregoing subsection as provides that any such order as aforesaid shall be provisional only and not have effect until it is confirmed by Parliament 'shall not apply where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, riot being less in area, certified by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (in the case of a. common or an allotment) or the Minister of Town and Country Planning (in the case of land held inalienably by the National Trust or an open space not being a common or an allotment) to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commoable or other rights and to the public:
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 42

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Samuel, V.

Meston, L.

Wimborne, V.

Monkswell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Monson, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Denham, L.

Rea, L.

Strafford, E.

Dorchester, L.

Saltoun, L.

Faringdon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Easher, V.

Herlech, L.

Winster, L.

Maugham, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Simon, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Long, V.

Macmillan, L.

Margesson, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

St. Davids, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Northumberland, D.

Sankey, V.

Rushcliffe, L.

Stansgate, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Simonds, L.

Normanby, M.

Chesham, L.

Soulbury, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Southwood, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Stanmore, L.

Cavan, E.

Stratcona and Mount Royal, L.

Dundonald, E.

Greville, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Hindlip, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller]

Iveagh, E.

Hindlip, L.

Jersey, E.

Jessel, L.

Thurlow, L.

Lucan, E.

Latham, L.

Wolverton, L.

Munster, E.

Lovat, L.

Woolton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Provided that—

(a) before giving any such certificate the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister of Town and Country Planning, as the case may be, shall give public notice of the proposed exchange, and shall afford opportunities to all persons interested to make representations and objections in relation thereto, and shall, if he thinks it necessary, hold a local inquiry; and

(b) the order shall provide for vesting the land given in exchange in the persons in whom the land acquired was vested, subject to the same rights, trusts and incidents as attach to the land acquired, and for discharging the land acquired from all rights, trusts and incidents to which it was previously subject.

3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER VISCOUNT ESHER moved, in subsection (8), at the beginning, to insert "Except in the case of land inalienably held by the National Trust as aforesaid." The noble Viscount said: I hope this Amendment, which I am about to move, will be considered sufficiently small not to rock the Government to its foundations. When this Amendment was moved in another place, the Minister of Health endeavoured to maintain that there was no essential difference between National Trust

327
properties and common land, and that it was quite reasonable for National Trust land to be exchanged under the same method by which the Government proposed to exchange common land. Surely there can be no comparison between the two things. Commons are selected for no particular quality except a low agricultural value. They are, in fact, lands which nobody in particular wanted to enclose, so that one piece of land is very much like another. On the other hand, the properties of the National Trust have been selected from the point of view of natural beauty or historic interest and have, for the most part, reached the Trust as gifts from those who loved them and were ready to make sacrifices in order to preserve them.
The State has recognized the special character of these properties by Acts of Parliament drawn up in order to protect them, and has given the National Trust the power to declare these lands inalienable for all time. Mr. Keeling (in another place) gave as an example Runnymede, and I cannot see how the noble Earl is going to maintain that if we were to take Runnymede away from the nation and give the nation in exchange two fields near Egham, he would have treated the nation fairly, or that it would be the same thing to lose the historic interest of the land at Runnymede and get, in exchange, something which has no historic interest at all.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the name National Trust. It indicates not only that its properties belong to the nation but that they are held in trust on behalf of those who gave them to the nation. The Government propose to give themselves the right to break that trust, to take away land which the owner gave and to substitute for it land which the donor did not give. The Government of course would plead necessity, that they cannot carry out their water schemes unless they have these powers, and necessity disregards trusts and knows no law. I do not know where the Government got the arguments from but they seem to me familiar and I do not like the sound of them. I would venture to suggest to the noble Earl that he would be on sounder and more English ground if he remembered the words of Burke: "If I cannot reform with equity I won't reform at all." beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 23, at the beginning insert (" Except in the case of land inalienably held by the National Trust as aforesaid ").—(Viscount Esher.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Clause 24 of the Bill gives power to statutory water undertakers to acquire land by two methods— either by agreement or by compulsion. If the land is to be taken by compulsion and objections are maintained, then a public inquiry has to take place in accordance with the proposals set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill. Land which is held inalienably by the National Trust can, it is true, be taken by a Provisional Order or by order of the Minister if there is other land offered in exchange, and if that other land is certified by the Minister of Town and Country Planning to be equally advantageous to the public. Again, if there is any objection in this particular sphere a public inquiry has to be held. It seems to me the body for which the noble Lord speaks and whose good work we are all acquainted with is really amply safeguarded.
Let me see if I can explain exactly what the Minister intends to do. It is quite impossible to give equally advantageous land in exchange for lands of unique historical importance but what my right honourable friend is concerned with is this. Suppose that on a portion of property now in the hands of the National Trust there are a group of cottages situated at a high level on the land and they could only be satisfactorily provided with public water if a tank was put in on a higher piece of land above the cottages. If in fact that happened to be the only place where it could be effective in order to give the cottages concerned their pipe supply of water, that would be done. That is all my right honourable friend intends to do. He is not of course in any sense suggesting that he should take enormous acres of beautiful countryside that has been left by some man or woman to the National Trust to be held forever for the benefit of the British public. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that my right honourable friend is very much against taking any land from the National Trust unless it is absolutely essential. The example which I have given is the one which I know my right honourable friend has at the back of his mind, but I assure your Lordships there is no intention whatever that the Minister

329
should ever take any large area of land which is at present in the hands of the National Trust. I hope therefore my noble friend will see his way to withdraw this Amendment. I appreciate the fear which he might have that it is the intention of the Minister to take a large portion of such land, but I assure him the Minister has no such intention.
LORD STRABOLGI: If the noble Earl was the Minister we could accept exactly what he says and leave these priceless heritages safely in his hands, but unfortunately our experience of Government Departments is very different. My noble friend Lord Esher mentioned Runnymede. I know something of what had to be done in taking the initiative in preventing Stonehenge from desecration. Our greatest difficulty there was the Air Ministry, which had some hideous buildings on the skyline. Those buildings were of no use whatever, being relics of the first world war, but they completely spoiled the wonderful escarpment and the skyline. Yet the Ministry persistently refused to remove them. Eventually, by enlisting all sorts of authorities on the highest level, we got these accretions taken away. In the case of Stonehenge we raised a large sum of money, a great portion of which came from the United States of America. Americans were as anxious as we were to preserve this unique monument of the downs. If it should happen that there were cottages in Stonehenge that required a water supply, from what we know of Government Departments we know they would not hesitate at all. The relics of the Druids would mean nothing to them. They would say, "There is nothing in the regulations about that." Or take the case of Lulworth. Lulworth is not a place of unique historic interest, it is only beautiful, and we had the very greatest difficulty in preventing it being turned into a tank training ground. I am only calling attention to this as an example of soullessness and lack of imagination and vision and of an historic and national sense on the part of Government bureaucratic offices. I think the words of this Amendment are necessary and I should support them.
VISCOUNT ESHER: It is as much as one's life is worth to press any Amendment on this Bill, therefore I feel constrained to accept the noble Earl's suggestion,
330
especially as I understand he proceeded to give what amounts to a Parliamentary undertaking that the provision will be administered in the reasonable manner which he has described. That being so I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Certainly I give the noble Viscount that assurance and I am delighted to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 6o agreed to.
Clause 61:
Saving for protective provisions in other Acts.
61. Except with the consent of the persons interested, no order made under Section thirty-two of this Act shall abrogate or affect—

(a) any provision contained in a local enactment for the protection or benefit of any specified person or class of persons or body of persons, whether incorporated or not;

(b) any provision contained in a local enactment for conferring on or preserving to the public rights of enjoyment of air, exercise and recreation on land or rights of access to land for those purposes or for conferring any right of way;

(c) any provision contained in a local enactment with respect to the quantity of compensation water to be discharged into any watercourse or the periods during which or the manner in which such compensation water is to be discharged.

3.28 p.m.
LORD WINSTER,LORD WINSTER, who had given Notice of five Amendments to this clause, moved, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert "or any provision contained in a local enactment with respect to the discharge of compensation water into any watercourse or the periods during which or the manner in which such compensation water is to be discharged." The noble Lord said: The Amendment I am proposing to Clause 61 involves also certain other clauses of the Bill. I gather that it would be for the convenience of the noble Earl if I deal with the whole matter at once. As it will be for my convenience also I am very happy to do so. What my Amendment is concerned with is the preservation beyond all possible doubt of the public's right of access to water catchment areas. I shall have to refer to the Birmingham clauses 'by which the legal rights of the public to access for air, exercise and recreation to commons passing into freehold possession of water takers, have been preserved. These clauses have preserved to the public a

331
right of access to some 200 square miles, and as in this country the public have access only to one-tenth of the area occupied by commons and hills, to preserve 200 square miles of them is of some importance.
The present Bill gives the Minister the power to repeal such clauses. He has power to do so under Clauses 33, 23 (I) (a), and 9 (3). Clause 33 is the principal one of these clauses. Under that clause the Minister may— these are the words—
"by order repeal or amend any local enactment relating to the supply of water …"
Conditions under which water is collected obviously relate to its supply, and consequently any undertaker could appeal for repeal or limitation of the Birmingham clauses on such grounds, for instance, as that there would be risk of pollution unless the statutory rights of the public to access to the catchment area were withdrawn or limited. It is important to note that this power of repeal of the Birmingham clauses was not contained in the Bill as introduced. What was then Clause 59 and is now Clause 61 expressly limited the Minister's powers. It said that no repeal should abrogate or affect any provision of a local enactment conferring public rights of enjoyment of air, exercise and recreation. But having got over what might have been rather an awkward fence in this way on introducing the Bill, the Minister then proceeded to withdraw the limitation during the Committee stage and unfortunately during the proceedings in Committee the effect of his Amendments was not recognized, so that the Minister got away with it.
On the Report stage, when the inwardness of what had been done in Committee had been perceived, the Minister stated that he had no intention of issuing any order so to amend local Acts that the Birmingham clauses and the legal rights of access they conferred would be abrogated or affected. That is merely a statement of good intentions on the part of the present Minister. Like cooks and caretakers, Ministers come and go. It is not a question of the good intentions of the present Minister. The fact remains that the legal power to amend these local orders and affect the Birmingham clauses are in the Bill. I agree that if a serious objection were raised to any Order made under Clause 33 and maintained at a public
332
inquiry the Order must be confirmed by Parliament. That is in Clause 33, but what that amounts to is simply that voluntary societies must do the work which should be done by Parliament. In my opinion vigilance on the part of voluntary societies is not a satisfactory form of protection. That is merely transferring the onus of protection which in the past had laid upon Parliament to the backs of voluntary societies, which will have to discover the meaning of an Order, which is not always easy, which will have to get a local inquiry held and will then have to get the whole business through Parliament. Those are very heavy tasks indeed to throw upon the backs of voluntary societies.
Parliament by this clause throws off its duty of initiative and its duty of protecting public rights and transfers that duty to voluntary societies. In the 1943 Bill, which presented an exactly similar problem, the Minister admitted that this was an insufficient protection and he accepted an Amendment to remedy it. But in the Bill which we are now considering we are back at the state of affairs which in 1943 the Minister agreed afforded only an insufficient protection. What is contained in Clause 33 permits the repeal of any local enactment relating to the supply of water and those words are wide enough to permit anything. The 1943 Bill gave us a perfectly firm commitment; the 1945 Bill gives us only a verbal assurance. I submit that in matters of such importance as this affecting the public right of access to land for air, recreation and exercise, a most important legal right, a verbal assurance only is an objectionable and unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. Therefore it seems to be right to bring forward Amendments again in a form which will bring the Bill as regards Clause 23 (1) (a) into line with what the Minister expressly accepted in 1943. Under the terms of my Amendment Clause 61 would expose the Birmingham clauses to Clause 23 (1) (a) and would protect them from Clause 9 (3) and Clause 10 (3) and above all from what is to my mind the highly objectionable Clause 33. Words which the Minister himself wrote into what then was Clause 59 and is now 61, which was opposed at Second Reading, gave the public absolute protection. The Minister obviously saw no objection to the public being given protection.
I think we ought to have unqualified protection, but my Amendment is modest. If it is accepted I agree that it only gives qualified protection. It in fact gives the Minister more than he asked for in the first draft of the Bill. That being so, I ask how the Minister can object to this Amendment. If he does object then let him go back to his original intentions and have unqualified protection, leaving any necessary minor Amendments to be dealt with, as they quite well could be, by short private Bills, and not taking away pubic access rights conferred by Parliament. If the Minister's assurance is to hold good for all time, why not put it into the Bill? It is the written word that remains and not the good intentions of a temporary Minister. My Amendments give effect to the considerations which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 40, at end insert ("or any provision contained in a local enactment with respect to the discharge of compensation water into any watercourse or the periods during which or the manner in which such compensation water is to be discharged.")—(Lord Winster.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendments which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, were put down, as I understand it, to secure that what is commonly called the Birmingham clause shall not be interfered with. I quite frankly admit that I agree generally with the spirit which prompted the noble Lord to move this Amendment, but I hope in my reply to succeed in persuading him that the Amendment is not really necessary and that my right honourable friend has no intention whatever of interfering with the principle underlying what is known as the Birmingham clause. If I may make just one observation on Clause 33, which my noble friend mentioned, I would like to say that in point of fact he has ample safeguard. First of all, there is the Minister's assurance, and secondly, there is the fact that an Order made under Clause 33 of the Bill is provisional. It can have no effect until it is confirmed by Parliament. Clause 33 or a similar clause was not included, it is true, in the 1943 Bill. Indeed I have been told that there has never been a clause such as the Birmingham clause included in any Water Bill or its predecessors, the Water Undertakings Bills in
334
1939 or 1943. Indeed, the very insertion of such a clause within the Bill must, I think, automatically refer to the specified tracts of land, and is not really appropriate to any Act of Parliament which deals with the general subject of water as a whole.
There was, and there still is, in Clause 61 of the Bill, provision designed to safeguard the Birmingham clause when the Minister comes to apply the new waterworks code, which is put in the Third Schedule to the Bill. In applying that code to a water undertaking he will have to review and to modify any existing local Acts or Orders. As the noble Lord's Amendments are drafted, they would prohibit the Minister from making an Order under any provision of the Bill except Clause 23, which authorizes the construction or acquiring by agreement, the alteration or continuance or maintenance of waterworks and works connected therewith, cutting down in any way the rights of access which are secured to the public under the Birmingham clause.
My right honourable friend went to the trouble— and indeed he went to considerable pains in another place— to show that it might be necessary in very rare cases to alter the Birmingham clause. But I think he went so far as to say that the only time he intended to alter it was when it was not practicable for some work to be executed anywhere except on some small piece of land to which the Birmingham clause is appropriate. I give as an indication the erection of a small pumping station, or some such establishment. I think that the guarantee which was given, that there was no question of any arbitrary or wholesale wiping out of these very valuable and useful provisions in the Birmingham clause, was sufficient for the purpose. I might add that these Amendments which the noble Lord seeks to include in the Bill, give the appearance of importing an express power to interfere with the Birmingham clause. The Minister does not seek the appearance of any express power, and he would, himself, not wish to have these particular words thrust upon him. I can say no more than to give the assurance which was given by my right honourable friend in another place, that it is not intended to destroy the Birmingham clause in every Water Bill which is passed through Parliament, but it is only in the very small and limited number of cases where land

335
is required for a pumping station and such-like work that my right honourable friend would then seek to amend the Birmingham clause so far as it affected that particular area.
LORD WINSTER: As I forecast, in my remarks, that he would do, the noble Earl has referred to the fact of his right honourable friend having no intention of doing certain things. He speaks about the provisions of Clause 33 being guaranteed by a verbal assurance which has been given by his right honourable friend. The noble Earl also said in reference to this matter, that the Order would be provisional if opposed. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, the onus of opposing an Order is being shelved by Parliament and is being thrown on to the backs of voluntary societies, which, obviously, will be at great loss in this matter. The noble Earl referred to an Order being made under Clause 33 of this Bill.
But let us look at the words. The original wording was:
"No repeal effected by or under this Act…shall abrogate or affect any provision contained in a local enactment for conferring on or preserving to the public rights of enjoyment of air, exercise and recreation."
Those words were clear and categorical, but they have been changed to this:
"Except with the consent of the persons interested, no Order made under Section thirty-two of this Act shall abrogate or affect any provision contained in a local enactment for conferring on, or preserving to the public rights of enjoyment of air, exercise and recreation. …"
If we come to look at Clause 32 we find that that only provides for embodying the third Schedule, which deals with the modernization of waterworks codes— in other words Orders which the Bill authorizes. The third Schedule cannot possibly touch the Birmingham clauses, so Clause 61, so far as that matter is concerned, concedes literally nothing at all.
I agree with the noble Lord— and indeed my Amendment concedes the point— that there is no objection to the Birmingham clauses being varied or abrogated to enable, for instance, extensions to reservoirs being carried out, or to permit of the erection of cottages necessary for workmen whose employment is connected with the reservoirs. That, as I say, is correct, and my Amendment makes allowance for
336
that fact. Certainly there is no objection to the Minister varying the Birmingham clauses by Order, to permit of necessary works being carried out.
Really all that fie noble Earl's remarks on this head amount to are this. He repeats the assurance of his right honourable friend that it is not intended to do anything at all at variance with the Birmingham clauses except in regard to such minor matters as those that I have agreed it is appropriate he should have a right to do. The noble Earl is only repeating the verbal assurance given by his right honourable friend. I can only repeat that in a matter which concerns rights which have been granted to the public by Parliament, I do not think that a verbal assurance on the part of a Minister is sufficient. This assurance which is given should be translated into words in the Bill which will make it binding upon his successors.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment.

WELSH CHURCH (BURIAL GROUNDS) BILL.
3.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this very short Bill resolves finally the problem of the transfer of the Welsh Church burial grounds, a matter which has been outstanding for a large number of years. Most noble Lords with Welsh interests at heart, and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, who tackled this question during his tenure at the Home Office, will be happy to learn that the end of this difficulty is now in sight. The Welsh Church Act, 1914, which was the Act which disestablished the Church in Wales, vested its property in the Welsh Commissioners, and directed them to transfer it to various beneficiaries.
As regards burial grounds, the Welsh Commissioners were required to transfer the "modern" grounds— that is to say, grounds given as private benefactions to the Church after 1662— to the Representative Body of the Church in Wales,

337
while the ancient grounds, the burial grounds existing before 1662, were to be transferred to small local authorities. For various reasons, into which I need not enter to-day, the local authorities refused to accept these ancient grounds, and some 700 burial grounds still remain in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners. Considerable discussion has taken place with the various representatives of public opinion in Wales, and indeed with Welsh Members of Parliament in another place, and, as a result, the present Bill can be truly said to be an agreed measure. The Bill provides for the transfer of all burial grounds which are now vested in the Welsh Commissioners to the Representative Body, and thus amends the Act of 1914, under which the Welsh Commissioners were required to transfer to different authorities the different categories of burial grounds which became vested in them by that Act. The new transfer will now take place on two conditions, which have been agreed to by the Representative Body: that there must be no discrimination in the arrangements for the burial of Nonconformists, and that the responsibility for the upkeep and for the maintenance of these grounds is to lie with the Representative Body.
If I may turn to the short Bill which is now before the House, I will briefly explain one or two of its clauses. Clause transfers en bloc all burial grounds now vested in the Welsh Commissioners so as to vest them in the Representative Body, on a day which will be appointed by the Secretary of State, but subject to one proviso— namely, the right of persons who were incumbents at the time of the passing of the 1914 Act to have these grounds vested in them during the remainder of their incumbency. Clause 2 deals with transferred burial grounds. Where a burial ground has, under the Act of 1914, already been received by a local authority, or would in fact be received on the termination of an existing incumbency, provision is made for the Representative Body to agree with the local authority concerned for the transfer of the ground to the Representative Body.
Clause 3 places an obligation on the Representative Body to maintain in decent order the burial grounds which will be transferred to them under the provisions of the Bill, a matter to which I have previously referred, and it is provided
338
that the Representative Body shall perform this duty in such manner as to preserve public amenities. The only other clause to which I need refer is Clause 4, which specifically provides, as I have already mentioned, that there shall be no discrimination in the matter of burial between members of the Church in Wales and other persons. This Bill is largely due to the considerable amount of work put into it by my right honourable friend Mr. Morrison, and it is largely due to him that it now comes before your Lordships' House, and I trust will shortly become an Act of Parliament. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, I hope you will permit me, as Chairman of the Representative Body of the Church in Wales, to congratulate the Government upon this Bill, which transfers the ancient Church burial grounds to the Church in Wales. It is an agreed Bill, which will be widely welcomed in Wales, and it owes much to the friendly and tactful negotiation with which the then Home Secretary, Mr. Morrison, brought the parties together. It will cure a sore which has for years been an open sore in Welsh Church circles. On the date of disestablishment in 1920, these churchyards became vested in the Welsh Church Commissioners appointed by the Crown, and it was their duty to transfer them to various local authorities. There were some 850 of these consecrated churchyards, and the vast majority of them surrounded ancient parish churches in the rural districts of Wales. They had been in the possession of the Church for centuries, and had been cared for as a sacred trust. Seven hundred of the local authorities refused to accept the transfer. The Welsh Church Commissioners could not administer the churchyards, many of which were in remote parts of Wales, and sought the help of the incumbents as a temporary remedy. The cost of upkeep has been considerable, and is increasing.
The attitude of the Representative Body of the Church in Wales has always been clearly stated, and has always been the same. We said: "We are prepared to accept the trusteeship of these churchyards, to keep them in decent order and

339
to see that all the parishioners, whatever their religious beliefs, have equal rights to burial in them." In 1927 a Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House to enable churchyards which had been refused by the local authorities to be transferred to the Representative Body, but it came to naught. There were not, however, wanting many men of good will among the Churches, the universities and the local authorities in Wales who were not satisfied with such a state of affairs, and who endeavoured to reach a settlement. It is the beginning, it is hoped, of a new era, and it is with a sense of deep satisfaction that I believe that it emphasizes the growth of a better understanding between the Christian Churches in Wales, and removes a source of sectarian strife and bitterness; and it is in accord with Welsh public opinion. Lastly, it has been brought about by friendly negotiations between the Government, the Welsh Parliamentary Party, the Welsh university, the local authorities and the Christian Churches in Wales. I am 'glad that at last this source of sectarian strife and bitterness is about to be removed, and I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
4.2 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is a very historic occasion, as those of us who are old enough to remember the bitter controversies over the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and particularly over this question of the burial grounds, will recollect. When you touch upon the question of the burial grounds of any people, you are dealing with something very deep and very human, and the strong feelings engendered in Wales will be remembered by all of us who look back on those times. Now, as the noble and learned Viscount has reminded your Lordships, we have this remarkable compromise, and I do not think it is fitting that the Bill should pass its Second Reading without a recognition by those who sit on these Benches of its great historical importance.
4.3 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, as a Welsh member of another place at the time, I opposed most vigorously the Act we are now seeking to amend, and championed the continued right of the Church
340
to retain its churchyards, a right which was defeated by some of my friends in the other camp. We welcome, naturally, this act of peace between the various parties and denominations, which are now unanimous in Wales, and rejoice that the ancient churchyards are going to be administered without sectarian bitterness or differentiation once again. We felt very bitterly on this matter in 1914, and some of us ventured to say then that we did not believe that the handing over of the churchyards to the local authorities would work. We were convinced that it would never work, and that the local authorities would not want them. The bulk of the local authorities refused to have anything to do with the matter. Then it was suggested that the universities, the main beneficiaries under the Act, should take responsibility. I was Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales and Chairman of its Council. I want to make it quite clear, especially in view of a letter in The Times, that the Welsh University did not and does not, under the Act, acquire one single churchyard. Yet it was suggested that the Welsh University would have to pay for their upkeep and maintenance when the local authorities declined to do so. We pointed out that under the Act we are not entitled to do so.
The only properties concerned were the diocesan estates, largely landed property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. We were unable, as a university, to use university funds to maintain some of these very historic churchyards with their ancient trees and monuments and records going back to the Middle Ages. It is tragic that a great many of them have been sadly neglected, but in accordance with the provisions of this Bill an undertaking has been given to restore them, maintain their decency and improve the amenities which have been neglected. Everyone in Wales, irrespective of Party denomination, is delighted. May I say that we owe the deepest debt to Mr. Herbert Morrison for his courage and initiative in healing what was in my young days in Parliament a matter of extreme bitterness? The whole question is now satisfactorily settled.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL.
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if you have possessed yourselves of a copy of this Bill you will see that it is a long and complicated measure and I would add the information that it is in some respects a very dull measure, although it is a Bill of the greatest importance and of much urgency. I think I am bound to give your Lordships somewhat full information as to its contents, although I trust that the conclusion will be that after it has been very considerably modified in another place, it will be found now to be in a state which will receive your Lordships' approval. This is a measure which is quite essential for the transition from war to peace. It is essential among other reasons for the protection of vast sums of the taxpayers' money which have been expended during the war and which to a certain extent may be recovered. At the same time, opportunity has been taken in it to make certain improvements in the machinery for derequisitioning property, to which reference will be found in Part VI, and in certain instances some improvements in the provisions for compensation. Those will be found in Part IX.
This Bill deals with a number of problems arising out of the use by the Government, for war purposes, of land which remains in private ownership. Of course, if the land has been acquired under the Defence Acts and has become the property of the Government, there is nothing more to be said. But vast areas of land have been made use of by the Government during the war without being purchased by the Government. Some of the land has been requisitioned and the ownership remains where it was. In some cases possession has never even been temporarily taken because by Defence Regulation No. 50 there was power for Government Departments to do work on land without even so much as taking possession. You might have an anti-aircraft gun put in the corner of some field without actually taking possession of the ground upon which it was placed. Owing to the necessity for speed in erecting factories, the creation of airfields, the improvement
342
of communications, providing accommodation for troops and workers and so forth, very large sums of public money have been spent on buildings and other works which have been erected on land which the Government have never acquired, for the most part on requisitioned sites.
The question now is: What is to be done? On the one hand, all proper respect ought to be paid to the owners of property who have willingly agreed that their land should be used, and one does not overlook the rights of such people, in appropriate cases, to ask for it back. On the other hand, there are many cases in which the land which was requisitioned were unimportant areas and on those lands there have been erected at Government expense enormously costly and valuable buildings, factories and all sorts of things. Therefore your Lordships will see that there is a very nice question here as to how we are going to adjust these rights. Sometimes works have indeed been constructed, largely or wholly at the expense of the State, by arrangement with the owner of the land, without the exercise of any statutory powers at all— a very strong illustration of the universal public spirit with which everybody behaved during the war.
I cannot give the House exact figures, but to show your Lordships what a really serious problem this is, I am provided with an estimate that the past expenditure of the Government in these matters is of the order of £700,000,000. That is very largely in connexion with these modern airfields, with their immense cement runways and the like; and I am told that £60,000,000—a small sum compared with the amount I have just mentioned, but quite a considerable figure— represents factories built at the Government expense on ground that they have not acquired. Your Lordships know that if we left things as they were and simply retreated, this enormously expensive construction which has been put on the top of the soil would belong to the owner of the soil, who in the first instance let us have it as bare land.
Of course a very large part of that expenditure will simply have to be endured, it will be part of the war debt. The Scripture enjoins us to beat swords into ploughshares. Well, that is very good, and the more economical the Government are the more this admirable transforma-

343
tion will take place, but there will be a certain amount of loss in the process, and the object, or one of the objects, is, while doing everything fairly, to do it without putting an undue burden upon the public. Whatever happens, a disagreeably large proportion will have to be borne as war debt. The question is what are we to do with this large collection of public assets in the shape of buildings, airfields and so on, which possess great value and a high degree of future usefulness? As I pointed out, unless we do something these things will all revert to the persons who own the land on which they were constructed, and there is no question, of course, of any adjustment being made.
Now what are the reasons why the State may be concerned to obtain ownership of the original land? Thinking it out, I feel that there are perhaps three reasons. The first and most obvious reason is that the State continues to need for its own use— urgently needs— the land and the buildings that have been erected upon it. You may have a military camp or barracks which will be needed for the post-war Army. There are many airfields which will doubtless be needed for the post-war Air Force. Some factories and other establishments may be needed for continued Government production and storage space. That is one consideration, which will apply in instances which need not be multiplied.
Then there is a second reason. The second reason would be that the Government may find it essential that we have the right to determine the post-war use of the property. I do not desire, especially to-day and at this hour, to have any controversy about the continuance of any control, but I think people who feel most deeply the necessity of promoting by every means in their power the export trade may think it not unnatural, within certain limits, that there should be some security that the public whose money has built the factory should not find the whole of their money wasted, and the factory used in directions which are of no assistance at all to the real needs of the country. We want to promote production to the maximum of our power, we want to take the steps, or encourage the step, which will secure the maximum amount of employment. And so it is important that the Board of Trade, the
344
Department specially concerned, should have some say in the way in which the Government-built and Government-paid-for factories are used. I think a reference to Clause 8, subsection (5), will trate what I mean. That is the second reason.
And there is the third reason, and the third class of case is this. It is the case in which the Government may have no particular interest as a matter of policy in the future use of what the taxpayer has built and constructed, but yet it may be very sound public policy that, instead of retreating and giving this windfall to the fortunate subject, the Government should have in the name of the public the right to sell the factory, or dispose of it in some other way, so that it really may at once be put to a good use and may provide some measure of contribution to meet the public outlay.
What I have said has been in the endeavour roughly to sketch the needs of the situation. The next question is: If those are the needs which have to be met, what should the powers be that will enable those needs to be satisfied? A great many Departments are involved in this complicated matter. Certain of the Departments concerned— the three Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production— have power under the existing law to buy for defence purposes under the Defence Acts. Not everybody can do it— the Home Office cannot do it— but those Departments can do it. In this Bill steps are taken to ensure that the position of the Ministries of Supply and Aircraft Production is to be in substance the same as the position of the Fighting Services, who have always had rather more extensive powers. If your Lordships care for a reference you will find it in Clause 33, subsection (2), of this Bill. Apart from those Departments, there really is no need to go much further, except to say that the Ministry of Works have a general right to buy for all sorts of Departments what is necessary.
But there is another side to this, the importance of which your Lordships will be the first to recognize. There is one thing more we really must be sure of, and that is that when there is a question of giving notice to acquire what is at present not Government property, the Government pay the right price. There are some cases, of course, where if you left things

345
as the law now is the Government will pay a great deal too much. Let us take the case of bare land on which, at the public expense, there have been great factories built. As I have already said, they might let things be, the requisition would cease, the Government would retreat, and the fortunate owner of this piece of bare land would find himself the owner of a vastly more valuable building. If instead of retreating the Government said, "No, after all, we want your factory, we must buy it from you," and the ordinary notice to treat is given the Government have to pay not merely the price of the bare land but the value of the factory, too, because the notice to treat requires that the value to be paid is the value of the whole property at the time when the notice is given. It would be the height of absurdity, if the taxpayer first of all found the money to build the factory and then proceeded to pay the money over again to somebody else who acquired the property under the existing land laws.
That is a case where far too much will be paid; but there are also cases in which, under the present system of compensation, much too little would be paid, because it may be that the result of the use of this requisitioned land has been to ruin it. You run tanks for three or four years over good ploughed land, wear off the good soil and get the whole thing in a hopeless state of ruin and decay. The same principle that you only pay compensation for the thing in the state in which you find it when it is acquired would enable the State to acquire that property at a cheap price, and of course it ought to pay more than the value of the land when it acquires it. Therefore we have to take great care that this is adjusted and you will find in Part VIII of the Bill a series of provisions, very cleverly drafted I think, which you may say in summary mean that you take the land and treat it as though it were conventionally taken back to the condition in which it was when the land was first requisitioned, and pay compensation for it. That is perfectly just and absolutely right to both sides.
Then there is a further thing I must mention. There are many Departments which have been vested, under the Defence Regulations, with power to requisition or otherwise make use of land, but they have no power compulsorily to
346
acquire it at all. The Ministry of Works is a notable example, and there will be cases where the Services and Supply Departments themselves will need to purchase for a purpose, for example for resale, which they have no right to do as the present law stands. They had temporary powers but we want to provide that those powers shall go on a little longer, and the temporary powers of compulsory purchase taken in the Bill will endure for the remainder of the war period and a further two years thereafter. The war period ends when the emergency powers end.
A great deal of thought has been given to this matter. Nobody wants to maintain these exceptional powers longer than is needed but, it having been looked at very closely, there is no doubt at all that you have to provide longer than just the war period, and a further two years is the right period, as I think everybody now agrees. Ministers other than those at the head of the Service and Supply Departments to whom these temporary powers are given would be, for example, the Minister of War Transport, in connexion with the roads; the Postmaster-General, in connexion with telephones, telegraphs and all that sort of thing; and the Minister of Works. The Minister of Works comes in as a generally useful office boy. Of course, the Minister of War Transport and the Postmaster-General have their definite fields, but the Minister of Works is the general agent for everybody else, and it is much better that these dealings in the nature of land purchase should be in the hands of a limited number of Departments and not generally conferred on the whole range of Ministerial Departments.
The next point is one which was a very troublesome one and required a great deal of analysis. Power is taken in this Bill to acquire easements and rights restrictive of the use of land, subject to the payment of compensation. It is really very important. There is no such adequate power now and, as things stand at present, if you are not able to acquire the easement— that is to say, to acquire, for instance, the right of the neighbour to cross a field— you have to buy the whole field. It is plainly right that the Departments should in proper cases be given this power, so that, for example, when land is being acquired for use as an aerodrome

347
less land would need to be acquired to get free access.
You may think I have plunged into the middle of a complicated affair and should have begun at the beginning. The first part of the first clause sets up a new Commission. It is called the War Works Commission and the Chairman of it is to be appointed by His Majesty. In Part II of the Bill you have provisions which show what is the degree of control over all this business which this Commission will exercise. That has been the subject of very long and careful debate in the other House, and it is in respect of this Part of the Bill that considerable changes have been made, with the result, I am glad to say, that both the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the Bill in the other place were carried unanimously, though there were considerable alterations in Committee.
I would wish to say, on behalf of the Government, that we do most fully appreciate that the mere fact that during the war the Government have had the use of somebody's land and have spent a lot of money on it does not, in itself, entitle us to say we will deprive the private owner of this land. It is necessary to do it where the case is fairly proved, but it is not in the least necessary, nor would it be right, to do it as a matter of course. You therefore want a War Works Commission and this is what the Commission is going to do. When objection is taken by anybody interested in the Department's proposal, if the Department makes a proposal to acquire land which it does not at present possess but which has on it the buildings which I have described, the objection to the Department's acquiring the land under these new proposals in the Bill has to be referred to this independent Commission. The intention is that the Commission shall be as strong and impartial a body as we can put together; and it will adjudicate, I have not the slightest doubt— it is not an instrument of Government in any way— as fairly as ever it can between the interests of the Government on the one hand and private interests on the other.
I may point out to your Lordships who are interested in this perennial controversy about private enterprise and Government, that this present topic presents a pleasing variation to the normal tune, because not only is there a possibility
348
of controversy between the Government, on the one hand, and the private owner, on the other, but it is quite possible that there may be very considerable controversy between one Department of the Government and another Department of the Government. You will have the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who probably does not care so much about recovering money for the Treasury as does the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There is the amenity consideration and there is the industrial consideration. Although properly under our Constitution different Ministers and different Departments will look after these different aspects, I anticipate that the Commission will not spend the whole of its life applying in a practical way the considerations which distinguish between private enterprise and the State. It will spend quite as much of its time in determining which view is right between, let us say, the Air Ministry on the one hand and the amenities on the other. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in an earlier debate to-day, observe caustically that it was no good arguing with certain Government Departments about the historic importance of Runnymede. There is a Department which is interested in that aspect and I dare say this may be the sort of thing in which it may be very useful to have the War Works Commission.
Suppose the War Works Commission has one of these disputes brought before it because the Government plan is opposed, what is the degree within which it can decide the matter? There are two cases in which the decision of the War Works Commission— I am assuming for this purpose that it vetoes this proposal— is absolutely final. There are two other cases in which it is not final, but Parliamentary intervention is provided for. These are the two cases in which, if the Commission reports against the Department's proposal, that is the end of the whole matter. Noble Lords who are following with the Bill might like to know that it is Clause 5 (1) (a) combined with Clause 9 (1) with which I am dealing. The first case is that where the Government's reasons for wanting to purchase are purely financial, which is no more than saying, "We have spent a vast amount of money on this and we want to save on the deal." If in a case like that the Minister asks to exercise compulsory powers and the Com-

349
mission says "No" (but of course before it says "No" it hears all sides) then that is the end of it and the Government have got to accept this as the final decision.
Perhaps as we are doing this a little carefully, I may refer to Clause 11 by which the Commission is required to address its mind not merely to the cost of works to the Government but the advantages or disadvantages which would accrue to any objector if the land were or were not acquired. As I pointed out, there will be many cases where if the land is not acquired the private objector will go off with a substantial booty. Another clause to be looked at in this connexion is Clause 10. The Commission can report that the land should not be acquired if any interested person is prepared to pay a reasonable sum, the sum specified by the Commission in respect of the value of the Government's works. Obviously that is quite reasonable. It may be that the owner of the land will come forward and say: "I recognize that you have built these splendid premises on my land and of course it is a great advantage to me. If you leave my land alone and if you let me have the buildings, I will make you a fair payment." If the Commission say that is the proper thing to do then what the Commission says goes. That is a case in which the decision of the Commission is quite final.
We have also thought that we ought in this Bill to give a very special protection in the case where the land that is claimed by the Government consists of dwelling-houses or gardens and things of that sort. The case is very much stronger for giving these things back than it is for giving back the bare land. I have in mind dwelling-houses, gardens and grounds essential for their proper enjoyment. Here again any negative report by the Commission saying that the Government ought not to acquire, although they want to do so, is final, and the Minister is required to report against the proposal to purchase unless such important conditions as those in Clause 11 (4) are fulfilled. One can easily see how an exception might arise. You might have the case, say, of a farmhouse which is now incorporated in a series of buildings connected with an airfield. You could not disentangle them and in a case like that it might be quite right to acquire
350
the farmhouse. But that will all depend upon the circumstances of each case. That is the pleasant side of the matter from the point of view of the private owner.
Here are the two instances in which, even though the Commission do report that an acquisition should not take place that is not the end of the matter. There are cases in which the Government of the country, whatever be the composition of the Government, cannot surrender all their responsibility to the Commission. There may be cases where the Government feel that it is absolutely essential in the public interest that they must have a certain property, or at any rate the right to control its use, and that they cannot simply accept the decision of the Commission and there be an end of it. But if the Commission's report is adverse the Minister is not stopped from proceeding with his proposals for a purchase. There now comes in a parallel process very familiar to us all— namely, that the Minister would have to lay the Commission's Report, which of course, would be adverse to the Government, with its reasons and his own reasons before both Houses of Parliament. Provision is made that within the next forty sitting days a Motion in either House can reject the Minister's claim and then it is finally defeated. In other words, the House will appreciate the position that the Government will really depend upon the support of Parliament. The action of Parliament will be quite enough to prevent an acquisition taking place if that is the view which Parliament of the time takes.
It will be said that in another place they are sometimes so busy that it is not easy to get time for all this, for really these negative Resolutions depend for their success on getting a House after eleven o'clock. Well, your Lordships' House, sitting in a more confined space but possibly with less continuous preoccupation, will, I apprehend, be able without inconvenience to entertain such a proposal before five o'clock in the afternoon. I do not think myself there will be many such cases because by that time the rights and the wrongs will have been fully worked out. Though very unkind things are sometimes said of Departments, especially by gentlemen who for the moment are not in the Government but who hope shortly to be so, the real truth

351
is that one does arrive in the end at a reasonable conclusion. I do not at all anticipate that there will be very fierce and constant Parliamentary wrangles on this subject. Public policy must have the support of Parliament. If Parliament rejects this as a definite piece of un-wisdom, then that will put an effective stop to the activities of the Minister.
I hope I shall be forgiven for a rather long speech, but the Bill is of great importance and it may be that future stages will not occupy much time. I must call attention to Part III. That deals with cases where highways have been stopped up or diverted under emergency powers to facilitate operations in airfields or factories or other war services, or which have been interfered with by the laying of mains, cables, railways, tramways and other things. There again the question is whether these war works should be retained. In some cases no doubt the tramway will be ripped up and the cable will be no longer needed, but where the retention of the war works is authorized it may be either impracticable to restore the original highway or, alternatively, restoration might seriously diminish the value of the Government asset. Therefore we have a provision closely parallel to those I have already explained. In such cases the Minister of War Transport may, by Order, authorize the permanent stopping up or the diversion of a highway if he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient.
Such an Order may provide for the provision of a substituted highway going further round instead of straight across, if that is really necessary, and proper compensation will be paid. If you force a local authority to maintain a road that is four miles long because you have stopped up a road that is three miles long, the local authority has the burden of maintaining an extra mile and must be paid for that. Public notice must be given of this proposal and if any objection is received the Order has to be referred to this War Works Commission for report. The Commission may report that the Order should be made as proposed without modification, or may say that there ought to be certain modifications, or may say that the Order ought not to be made at all. If the Minister of War Transport still feels that in spite of
352
that impartial pronouncement he must proceed in the face of an adverse report, he has to lay before Parliament a copy of the Commission's report and a copy of his own reasons for disregarding the recommendations. Again, a negative Resolution in either House within forty sitting days would stop his attempt.
In Part IV there are clauses which deal with work done under emergency powers during the war by the post Office. I see my noble friend Viscount Samuel making a note. Nobody knows the way to the Post Office better than he does because he used to preside over it. The point here is not so much the need to purchase the land as the need to maintain the works. That is the important thing. You may have great difficulty in doing it under the existing law and so we provide that telegraph lines, constructed under emergency powers, are to be treated as having been constructed under the ordinary powers of the Post Office, under the Telegraph Acts, subject to the rights of any person, whose consent to construction would have been required under those Acts, to require the removal of the lines. There are cases where quite grave inconvenience would be caused to the owner or occupier. There is power to the Postmaster-General to refer the question to the appropriate tribunal.
Part V deals with cases where not the Government but the local authorities are primarily concerned. What has happened during the war— probably only those closely interested in local government work are aware of it— is that we have used emergency powers to enable local authorities to occupy or use land for a purpose which in peace-time would only have been possible if they had bought under compulsory powers. I believe there is one case— there may be others— where houses for factory workers have been constructed on requisitioned land by a local authority. The Bill does not add to the power of compulsory purchase possessed by local authorities, but enables them to buy in such cases under a simplified procedure. If a local authority had it in mind to acquire land and construct houses upon it, the matter would begin with a local inquiry at which evidence would be given in order to get a report from the inspector of the Ministry of Health as to whether it was a good or bad scheme. It is no good going through all that if you have

353
the houses on the land already. Therefore we have got round all that by a simplified procedure which I think I need not further describe.
Lastly the Bill contains a number of very important miscellaneous provisions. I ought perhaps to mention briefly one or two of them. The power of compulsory purchase is not the only power needed. We also need power to remove valuable works and we need power to repair damage clone to land which there is no need to purchase. In many cases the Government have put into a factory most valuable plant which under the ordinary law of landlord and tenant could not be removed, although of course it ought to be removed. It has been paid for by the Government, the Government want it, and in the end no doubt will sell it. There must be power for that. Again, you want power by which you can repair damage clone to the land, because sometimes land has been most frightfully damaged. In proper cases it ought to be possible to repair the land and so reduce the amount of compensation ultimately to be paid.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is my noble and learned friend dealing with Part VI?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is contained in Clauses 28 to 30.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask a question? I am sure my noble and learned friend will not mind the interruption. In Part VI power is given to enter upon land to remove property, but if I read it aright there is no obligation to remove obstructions. For example, there are cases, with which no doubt the noble and learned Viscount will be familiar, of road blocks or anti-tank obstructions on private property. There is power to enter the land to remove, but there is no obligation to do so if I read the Bill aright. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will explain that. The compensation seems to be only for damage in removing the obstruction and not for any damage done to the unfortunate occupier when obstructions are not removed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord will find that the position is this. There is provision for payment of compensation. If you leave on the premise s some obstruction such as he described, compensation would have to be compensation which took info account the
354
fact that the land was suffering from that obstacle. Alternatively, if the obstruction is something which should be removed then, of course, there is power in the Bill to remove and there is provision for payment for the damage done in the course of pulling it out. I think that the noble Lord will see therefore that the scheme operates one way or the other. It compensates the person whose place was left in this damaged condition and ensures that something may be paid to him for the depreciation of the value to his property caused by the presence of the obstacle there. That is to say where the Government do not pay for leaving the obstacle there, they may pay what is right for the damage that may be done in removing it.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount could make this plain. Are we to understand that a citizen has not got the right under this Bill to require authority to remove the obstruction? Is he only compensated if the obstruction is removed by the Government? The removal of these things is vitally important in the case of many gardens and areas of agricultural land.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am fully alive to this point. I think the explanation which I have given is clear. I do not think that the citizen, under this Bill, can ask for a mandatory injunction because the thing is settled either one way or the other. If the Government should leave on the noble Lord's property some unsightly pyramid, which it was hoped would check the advance of the largest German tank, no doubt that would cause injury to the noble Lord— though, of course, he could grow creepers over it. If it is left there he would be compensated for the damage done to his property, for he would have a proper claim. May I just add this? Part VIII of the Bill, as I think I have already said, provides for the necessary adjustment of compensation. We must be sure that we pay fair compensation, but not pay over again for something which we ourselves created and yet do not ourselves acquire at what may now be a very small value, because of the damage that exists because we ourselves have smashed it up. That is the object of Part VIII and it has indeed a very wide application.
My Lords, I am afraid that I have done what is not uncommon in a long speech and have said prematurely that there is

355
only one more thing I wanted to say. I hope that I may be forgiven. This Bill comes winding its great length along and you hardly know when you have got to the end of it. The only remaining clause to which I must draw attention is Clause 52. It is not always that the doing of war work on land by the Government enhances the value of that land. In some cases it depreciates 'the value. There are cases where the provisions of the present Compensation Act are not wholly adequate. I will not go into detailed explanations after what already I have tried to say. The Bill has been before the public and it has been very much examined by a wide range of critics now for I think five months. It has been very closely scrutinized, I am sure, by some of your Lordships, and I should not be surprised to learn that some of you did not think that the Bill as introduced was satisfactory. I believe, though, that you will be very much more disposed to accept it now that it has been altered in quite important respects.
One of the things which at one time greatly stirred public feeling was the treatment of open spaces. I have not mentioned this matter in the résumé which I have given, because really, the point has disappeared. Originally, it may have seemed harsh that open spaces should be dealt with as the Bill when introduced provided. But now the open spaces clause is quite in line with the rest of the Bill, and if I do not spend time to defend it or expound it, I am sure that your Lordships will be satisfied. Commons or open spaces may not be purchased under Part II of the Bill without an affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons— not a negative but an affirmative Resolution. You have got to get this positive authority before you can do anything at all, unless the appropriate Minister certifies that equally advantageous land is being given in substitution. There are cases in which that might be so. Clause II, subsection (5) provides:
"Where the proposals are for the acquisition of any land under Section five of this Act and—

(a) the land to be acquired consists of or includes the whole or any part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment; and

(b) the Commission are of opinion that the works in question are not both substantial raid permanent in their nature,

356
the Commission shall, notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this section, report that the proposals, so far as they relate to land consisting of or forming part of the common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment shall not be proceeded with."
That will, I believe, relieve a great deal of anxiety.
The Bill has now had introduced into it in all appropriate places directions as to the necessity of getting the opinion of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and his view as to whether a particular acquisition is justified will naturally turn on his opinion as to whether these valuable schemes, either local or national, are interfered with. He is given a position of special prominence in the Bill with special powers in order that he may be quite certain that that most important aspect of the matter is not overlooked.
There is the Bill. A number of very important changes have been made in it, in the course of its passage by the whole House of Commons, in order to improve it. Efforts have been made not only for the purpose of providing protection for private interests but even more with a view to safeguarding public amenities, commons and open spaces. As a result of this I can only tell your Lordships that in my belief your Lordships will think that the Bill as it now stands does represent a just balance and a fair solution of what I am free to confess I have been led to regard as perhaps the most difficult and complicated subject arising out of the war that I have ever had to handle. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the Lord Chancellor has clearly shown to your Lordships that a Bill of this nature is quite essential in the public interest. The amount of Government work involved is enormous. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack mentioned the figure of £700,000,000. We have been dealing with such colossal sums during the years of the war that anything less than £1,000,000,000 is hardly noticed. In fact it is regarded almost as something in the nature of petty cash. But this sum of £700,000,000 is about equal to the whole of the British National Debt immediately before the last war, and in addition there

357
are apart from this matter of money some 800,000 acres of agricultural land affected by these works— a most important consideration.
This Bill was introduced in January and in a form which led it to be regarded, and properly regarded, as a very highhanded measure. It gave the Ministers most arbitrary powers. It gave those who objected to the exercise of those powers recourse, it is true, to a Commission, but to a Commission which was to be appointed by the Treasury, and which evidently was expected to deal mainly with financial considerations. It showed scant regard for many public rights and amenities, and no regard at all for town and country planning. The Minister of Town and Country Planning was not even mentioned in the Bill in its original form, and apparently the Departments concerned with the drafting of the Bill had never heard that there was such a thing as town and country planning which was a matter of national importance. Land, it appeared, could be requisitioned by the Government, and then, if afterwards retained but not found to be necessarily needed for Government purposes in perpetuity, and therefore sold to private owners, it would be sold having been freed from all town and country planning restrictions by having been converted for a time into Crown property. I say this on the authority of one of the leading town planners, Sir Patrick Abercrombie, who gave the facts in a letter to The Times at that period. Commons and amenities were injuriously affected.
The result of all this was a storm of protest against this Bill. The town and country planning movement was naturally indignant; the National Parks Committee protested; the Commons Preservation Society made complaints, and in the House of Commons the Bill was most strongly criticized. The result of all that was quite effective, and it shows the valve of Parliamentary control over a bureaucracy, and the usefulness of stern and vigorous criticism in Parliament. The Bill has now been transformed. The Minister of Town and Country Planning has been given a proper status and an opportunity to speak on behalf of the interest with which he is charged. Amenities are dealt with in Clause 8 (2), and commons in Clause 12. All these matters have been treated to the
358
satisfaction on the whole, I think, of the interests concerned. In the process, the Bill has been extended from forty pages to fifty-two. As to the War Works Commission, which has to-day so important a role in the whole matter, that is not now to be appointed by the Treasury, but by His Majesty. That applies not only to the Chairman of the Commission, as I think the noble and learned Viscount said by a momentary slip, but to all the members of the Commission also.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: That Commission will perform a useful function, as the noble and learned Viscount said, by on occasion arbitrating between two Departments which may easily come into conflict with one another and have differences of opinion on some of these matters. My noble and learned friend was good enough to refer to the fact that: more than thirty years ago I held the office of Postmaster-General. At one time I also held the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and at one moment. I found myself in one capacity involved in quite a bitter controversy with myself in the other. As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster it was my duty to claim certain sums as wayleaves from the Postmaster-General, while as Postmaster-General it was my duty to resist that claim, holding that the Duchy of Lancaster was a quasi-public Department, and therefore could not claim such way-leaves. The correspondence between us (if I may use the word "us") became at one time quite heated, and was liable to cause a breach in our normal friendly relations. Fortunately, when the matter was just approaching a climax and both Departments were becoming seriously disturbed, I surrendered the Duchy of Lancaster to another Minister, and I do not know to this day which side won; because very soon after that I ceased to be Postmaster-General and became Home Secretary, and the keen and warm interest which I took in the controversy at one stage was dissipated.
That this War Works Commission under the Bill does not have ultimate authority to reject representations from a Minister is something of which I do not complain. I think it is right that, as provided in the Bill, the Minister may have recourse to Parliament; because, after all, this Commission is an indepen-

359
dent body, responsible to no one, while the Minister is responsible to Parliament, and, as these are not judicial matters proper to be treated by a court of law, it is, I think, the right conclusion of the whole matter that a Minister, if he is dissatisfied with the verdict of the Commission, should be allowed to have recourse to Parliament.
I and my noble friends on these Benches support the Second Reading of this Bill, and we have no Amendments to propose. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount, however, that if the Bill had been first introduced into this House in the form in which it reached Parliament, it would have had a very different reception. Indeed, I feel bound to say that the Government are open to much criticism for having permitted a Bill so drafted to be introduced into Parliament by them. It caused a great deal of trouble. It gave rise to the necessity for a considerable amount of agitation in other quarters, and it took up a good deal of Parliamentary time. To-day, however, my only duty is to shake a warning finger and to advise the Government not to do it again.
5.8 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble and learned Viscount that this Bill is dull; it is one of the most exciting Bills which has ever been before your Lordships' House. While I have great sympathy with his exposition, to which I have listened with care, it does appear to me that we may have in this Bill the principle that a man who has laboured all his life to acquire property may find in the end that he has a weaker claim to it than somebody else whose principal claim to it is that he wants it. I can illustrate the whole matter, out of many examples known to me, by one case which may turn out to be a case of particular hardship, and with which I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House will have the greatest sympathy.
A farmer of my acquaintance, towards the end of a long life, purchased a farm of which he was the tenant; and, being very skilful in the art of drainage, in a very short time he improved this farm considerably. He had associated with him on the farm his son, whose health had been broken by service in the Merchant
360
Navy in the last war. During this war, a very large number of sites had been taken from his farm for use in connexion with an air station. I say "taken," because, as I expect many of your Lordships know, in most cases these sites were taken and occupied and works constructed on them before they were requisitioned. In nearly every case the first intimation which this man had of any works supposed to be done on his farm was the actual construction of the works concerned. On one occasion, however, he ascertained what was going to happen; and, as it involved a good deal of unnecessary damage, he asked me to go with him to the authorities to find out what was going to be done and to ask that some change might be made. I went with him, and we were able to obtain an alteration of the site which in fact has done no harm to anybody and has been satisfactory all round, but during the course of the conversation we pointed out that in no case had either of them been approached with a requisition or consulted about the work, and as a result in many parts of the farm the whole system of field draining had been cut, considerable areas of the best land had been flooded, and valuable crops had been lost. Moreover, the drains had been connected up in such a way that all the cattle troughs were filled with sewage. When this was pointed out the contractor merely said, "We will alter the connexions."
By this Bill it appears to me that the whole of this trouble is going to be perpetuated. When we complained to the requisitioning authority about the drains we were told that the agricultural executive committee knew all about them and had given permission for the work to go on. That, of course, is an absurd statement. Among other things a dwelling site was erected on the catchment area of the water supply to a populous village. Most of the enlightened county councils— I think Dumfries is one of them— insist that where a sewage-pipe crosses a water main the whole crossing should be shrouded in concrete for 30 feet on either side. Your Lordships will realize, therefore, the risks to which disregard of this kind of provision has subjected all the people in that parish. These things may very well go on during the war. These two farmers have said all along: "We can make a fuss, but we are not going to. This is only

361
going on until the end of the war, and anything we do now will merely hamper the national war effort, and we are content to suffer all this until the end of the war." But, if the provisions of this Bill are exercised against these people, they will have a very serious grievance. There is no compensation which can compensate them for taking away some of the most valuable land on the farm. Everybody in your Lordships' House knows that the capital and fixed equipment for a large farm is quite uneconomic when it is applied to a much smaller farm. I have searched the Bill in vain for any provision which enables the whole farm to be acquired. One might say: "We have done a great deal of damage, and so we will buy the whole property;" but even so I do not think that the Bill does justice to the private owner, because you assess this farm on 1939 prices and he will have to buy another farm on the basis of prices in 1946, and I do not think anyone can say that that is fair and just treatment.
I should be happier about the Bill if in Clause paragraph (c) in subsections (2) and (3) had been paragraph (a), and if (a) had become (c). I do not like it to appear that hardships should be the last consideration to which the Commission should have regard. I think that change would greatly improve the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What is the suggestion?
LORD SALTOUN: It is with reference to Clause II, subsections (2) and (3). In subsections (2) (c) and (3) (c) you will see that "the degree of loss or hardship" is the last consideration. I should like to see that in the place of paragraph (a). I think that might even alter the spirit of the Bill. I feel that these are points which deserve consideration and I venture to bring them before your Lordships.
5.17 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The details of the case to which my noble friend refers are quite unknown to me. Even if the details have been checked I do not really think that those who are interested in the case need, be too much concerned, nor do I consider that the suggested change in Clause 11 would result in altering the spirit of the Bill. If you have got to list three things, (a), (b) and (c), (c) is just as important as (a). It is not a class list. It is not something which
362
places the least deserving at the bottom; it is simply arranged for convenience. The consideration in paragraph (c) is just as much and as forcibly in our minds as the question of (a). If part of the farm is bought, it is quite true that there is no way in which the man who is going to lose that part can compel the Government to buy the whole of it. That is not the way in which our law works. If part of the farm is bought the amount to be paid is not merely the value of that part considered by itself; the compensation would also have to include what was considered to be appropriate for what is called injurious affection and for the severance which would have taken place. That is part of our regular law. I think there is no reason to believe that, because part of the property is taken, it would necessarily result in injury to the loser; you have to include an additional amount as a compensation for injurious affection, as the land may be made less valuable by the fact that it is divided into two. I cannot give any particular assurance, but I think the noble Lord should bear that in mind.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BURMA STAR
5.19 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Burma Star graciously approved by His Majesty is to be issued only to those who have actually served in Burma in the present campaign, or whether it is to be issued to those who have done all their service in connexion with the Burma campaign in India.]
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, the question is whether the Burma Star should be issued only to those who have actually served in Burma in the present campaign or whether it is to be issued to those who have done all their service in connexion with the Burma campaign in India. The qualifying area for land operations is service in Burma since December 11, 1941. In addition, service on land from May, 1942, to December, 1943, in the provinces of

363
Bengal and Assam and since January, 1944, in those parts of Bengal or Assam east of the Brahmaputra will qualify subject to the prescribed conditions.
LORD STRABOLGI: Is the noble Marquess aware that this means that an officer who has served all his time at an office desk is entitled to the Burma Star, and does he think that that is fair?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's question. As a matter of fact, the whole situation has been described in Command Paper No. 6633. Actually, the Provinces of Bengal and Assam were included for the period stated because the threat by Japan was then more serious. When the situation improved it became possible to restrict the qualifying service in India to service east of the Brahmaputra.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to press the noble Duke, but this is a matter that is felt very deeply by the fighting soldiers in Burma. Is he aware that according to the White Paper it means that the whole of the base staff in Calcutta will be entitled to the Burma Star if they were there between these dates?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I can only assure the noble Lord that I will bring what he says to the notice of the proper quarter and see that what he says receives every attention.

ARCTIC CONVOYS.
5.21 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether it is proposed to recommend to His Majesty that a special medal or star be awarded for service on the Arctic convoys to and from Northern Russia.]
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, subject to the prescribed conditions, service with convoys to and from North Russia is to be recognized by the grant of the Atlantic Star.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to persist again, but is the noble Duke aware that this answer will not satisfy a great
364
many of the officers and men of the Royal Navy and the merchant service, who performed most arduous duties in the Arctic convoys? The warfare was quite unique in its hardship and risk. And will the noble Duke be good enough to convey the suggestion that there might be a special decoration for this remarkable service?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I will again convey that suggestion to the proper quarter.

INCOME TAX BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PONTYPOOL GAS BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill.
Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

MID SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.