Lords Sitting of 27 November 1947

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the Constitution of New Zealand and to move that it be read a first time. I hope that in view of the exceptional nature of this measure your Lordships will be willing to suspend Standing Orders in respect of this Bill and take it through all stages as first Order on Tuesday next.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read a.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Bill read a, and to be printed.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read a; and to be printed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
4.5 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.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The Viscount Mersey in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Delegation to education committee]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill:
LORD SALTOUN: On this question, I would remind your Lordships that on Second Reading this Bill was described by
998
the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, as a non-contentious measure, but since that time and only very recently, in the course of the last two days, I have received a great many communications from Scotland which show that this Clause 1s, on the contrary, very contentious. I have a letter also complaining that great difficulty has been experienced by parties interested in getting copies of the Bill from the Stationary Office in Edinburgh. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 4 deals with a matter that has been a battle ground for more than a generation—the control of education in the counties of Scotland. It has varied from the old school boards to exceptional education authorities and to the county council education committees, and now we are faced with a further change. I am not saying it is not right. I have not had time to examine it. But I think in a matter of this kind that the parties interested should have a chance of making their representations before the Bill comes to be debuted in your Lordships' House. Therefore I beg my noble friend to arrange for an interval between Committee and the Report Stage, with liberty to bring this matter up again on Report, in order that noble Lords interested in the matter may have time to inform themselves about public opinion in Scotland and to form their own opinion on a rather thorny question.
EARL DE LA WARR: For an Englishman to intervene on a matter affecting Scotland, where Scotsmen are disagreeing, is something like an outsider daring to intervene between man and wife. But I am not going to address myself to the merits of the question. What I wish to say is simply this: I think noble Lords will agree that it is most important for the conduct of the business of this House that if we are told a matter is non-contentious, we should be absolutely sure it is so. I feel that this is due to some misunderstanding, but if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will assist us by post-poning the date of the Report stage that would be helpful.
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Lord who has just spoken should be congratulated on daring to intervene in a Scottish debate. At the same time, I hope this will not be the only occasion on which he will do so. The more our English colleagues take an interest in Scottish affairs, the better it will be for

999
us. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, was good enough to give me notice yesterday that he proposed to raise this point, and I am obliged to him., In regard to the statement I made that the Bill, I was advised, was non-contentious, perhaps I ought to have qualified that by saying, "so far as any Bill from Scotland can be non-contentious." I had, however, during the many years in which I have not lived in Scotland perhaps forgotten that there is no such thing as a non-contentious Bill in Scotland.
What I meant was this. Let us begin at the beginning. I think your Lordships will agree that, with the exception of Clause 4, there is no question whatsoever. That limits us to Clause 4. When speaking on the Second Reading in your Lordships' House I described the extraordinary circumstances under which this Bill reached the Statute Book. It was introduced in the days of the National Government and had only just received its Second Reading and gone to the Scottish Grand Committee in another place when the National Government came to an end. That Government was replaced by what was called the Caretaker Government, and as a General Election was about to take place in a very short time, it was necessary that something should be done about the Bill. I suppose the usual channels, as they are called, agreed that, since all Parties desired the Bill, it was as well to let it go through. Therefore, there was a very short discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee and very little in your Lordships' House, but during the discussions in another place this particular clause was discussed at some length and was added to the Bill.
Since then there has been a decision in the Courts by which—without going into technicalities; I am speaking with no legal knowledge—the Clause 1s now interpreted as not carrying out what it was intended to carry out. The object of this Bill, therefore, is so to alter the clause as to make sure it really does what it was originally intended to do. The original Bill was non-contentious and the only effect of this Bill, apart from the smaller points, is to make clear what apparently was not clear before—probably due to the haste with which the matter had to be dealt with in 1945—that a county council shall delegate its powers
1000
in education in Scotland to an education committee. That position has been successfully challenged in the Courts, and it is now desired to make the matter clear beyond a shadow of doubt.
I do not think it necessary, nor do I think the noble Lord desires, that we should discuss the point at this stage. What the noble Lord asks is merely that there should be time to consider the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who is not here to-day, wrote me a letter in regard to the difficulty of getting copies of the Bill in Scotland, and I have replied to him. I am sorry I have not a copy of the letter which I sent in reply to the noble Lord, but the answer I gave was that there was an unexpectedly large demand for the Bill when it arrived in Edinburgh, that it was sold out very soon, and that there was a delay of a day or two before additional copies could be obtained. I would like to assure the House that there was No 1ntention whatsoever on the part of the Government to rush the Bill through, and there is no earthly reason why they should do so.
I come to the short point which the noble Lord has been good enough to put before your Lordships. I am sure he will appreciate that I have no authority to interfere with the time-table fixed for getting the Bill through the various stages in your Lordships' House but, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will gladly give a promise to use my best endeavours to secure an extension of the normal time which elapses between the Committee stage and the Report stage here, so as to enable organizations and local authorities especially interested in this matter to consider the Bill and consult together should they so desire. I have reason to think that there will be a slightly longer period than usual before the next stage of the Bill, during which time it will be quite in order for any noble Lord to raise this point and discuss its merits. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that.
LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to my noble friend. The very fact that there has been an unprecedented demand for the Bill indicates the extensive interest in the matter in Scotland. I beg to withdraw my objection to the clause now.
On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule [Minor Amendments]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert at the beginning of the Amendments to the principal Act:

"Section eleven …

In subsection (3) for the words 'or junior college' there shall be substituted the words 'junior college or other educational establishment', and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the words 'or for other activities of the school, college or establishment for which special clothing is desirable'".

The noble Lord said: May I say that all the Amendments to the Schedule deal with very minor matters. The purpose of this Amendment is two-fold. First, it is to enable education authorities to provide clothing suitable for physical exercise for pupils attending any educational establishment under their management, instead of for pupils at schools and junior colleges only, as at present. Secondly, it is to give similar power with regard to special clothing which is desirable for other activities of the school, junior college, or other educational establishment. Some of the work carried out in schools, including special schools, technical colleges, continuation classes, and so on, is of such a character that special protective clothing is desirable. The existing powers of education authorities are not wide enough to enable them to make this available. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of the next Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to direct that the premises of new educational establishments, as well as those of existing establishments, need not conform to the building regulations in cases where it would be unreasonable to require conformity. When a new school is being built in a built-up area it will often not be possible to secure a site or to erect buildings which conform in all respects to the building regulations. This Amendment is to cover exceptional cases that may arise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 9, at end insert:

("Section twenty.

In subsection (2) in the proviso after the words 'educational establishment' there shall be inserted the words ' (whether existing or proposed to be established) '").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 24 and 25, leave out ("an educational establishment") and insert ("a school").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of my next Amendment is to enable an education authority to have a child medically examined where they think that he may require to be dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Acts after leaving school. At present authorities have the power to require the parent to submit the child for medical examination when it enters school, in order to enable the authorities to decide whether the child requires special educational treatment or is uneducable. It is desirable that the authority should likewise be able to obtain a medical opinion as to the mental condition of the child before they decide whether he is likely to require to be dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Acts after leaving school. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, at end, insert:
("Section fifty-seven—
At the end of the section there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
' (2) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of Section fifty-four of this Act shall apply for the purpose of the duty of an education authority under the last foregoing subsection 1n like manner as those provisions apply for the purpose of the duty of the authority under subsection (1) of the said section'").—(Lors Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next Amendment deals with two small matters relating to Section 28 and Section 32. The purpose of the revised Amendment of Section 28 is to provide that the minimum age for

1003
employment is thirteen when the school-leaving age is fifteen, and fourteen when it is sixteen. The purpose of the revised Amendment of Section 32 is to make it clear that the minimum age for taking part in entertainments is the same as that for other forms of employment—namely, thirteen when the school-leaving age is fifteen, and fourteen when it is sixteen. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out lines 3 to 13, and insert:
("Section twenty-eight—
For paragraph (a) of subsection (1) as amended by the Fourth Schedule to the Education (Scotland) Act, 1945, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—

(a) before the thirteenth anniversary of the day of his birth when the upper limit of the school age within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, is fifteen, or before the fourteenth anniversary of such day when the said upper limit is sixteen'

Section thirty-two—
In subsection (3) for the words from 'grant a licence' to 'residing in their area' there shall be substituted the words 'while the upper limit of the school age within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, is. fifteen, grant a licence to a child who has actually attained the age of thirteen years and is residing in their area, and, while the said upper limit is sixteen, grant a licence to a child who has actually attained the age of fourteen years and is so resident'").—(Lord Morrison.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I should simply like to make it clear that we on this side of the House welcome this position and think it will be an improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

WATER BILL. [H.L.]
4.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the object of this small Bill—which, not being a Scottish Bill, has quite a good chance of proving uncontentious—is to amend the Water Act of 1945 in order to remove certain difficulties that have arisen from the procedure laid down
1004
in that Act for the supply of water by water undertakers to the public. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Water Act is, on the whole, working satisfactorily, and that many local authorities and statutory water undertakers have already made good use of its powers. I confidently expect that further use will be made of those powers when the authorities concerned have had time to consider carefully the many detailed surveys already made or being made by the Minister's engineering inspectors and by consulting engineers.
I also expect that the carrying out of the policy for the development of new towns will bring demands for fresh supplies of water. Indeed, this has already been demonstrated. Although it is intended to use the resources of existing undertakings to the utmost possible extent in meeting these demands, there will inevitably be cases in which the development corporation will themselves have to become statutory water undertakers, either alone or acting in combination with other authorities. It is essential, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, that the development of these new towns in England and Wales should not be handicapped or delayed by difficulties in providing a satisfactory water supply. For this reason it is specially important that the procedure whereby the water undertaker obtains water should be both speedy and effective.
The main difficulties that have been found in the existing procedure under the 1945 Act are these. Would-be water undertakers cannot carry-out the function of supplying water until they are in a position to exercise certain statutory powers provided for that purpose by the Act. These powers include such simple preliminaries as the right to acquire land, the right to build waterworks and the right to take water from rivers or from other water undertakings. But the definition of the term "statutory water undertakers" in Section 59 of the Act does not allow these powers to be exercised until water undertakers are already supplying water. This produces the absurd result that new undertakers cannot become statutory undertakers until they are actually supplying water. This means that they are unable to obtain a supply of water in bulk, or to acquire the land or water

1005
rights necessary for them to do their job, until they are engaged in supplying water and have thereby qualified under the terms of the Act to be statutory water undertakers. It is proposed to meet this difficulty by providing that new undertakers will become statutory water undertakers when they are authorized by a local enactment, which follows an order made by the Minister, to supply water, instead of having to wait until they are actually engaged in this operation. This is provided for in the amended definition of "statutory water undertakers" in Clause 1 of the Bill now before the House.
A similar difficulty arises in the case of joint boards and the amalgamation of water undertakings in Section 9 of the Act. It will often happen that the new undertakers thus formed will need additional powers for the taking of a bulk supply of water, or for the construction of new works, or for the acquisition of land or water rights at the time they are set up. They will, of course, become statutory water undertakers as soon as they are constituted, as they will take over the function of undertakers already supplying water. But they cannot apply for these additional powers which I have mentioned until they are actually functioning. This requirement for obtaining the necessary powers in two stages may cause a serious delay and handicap their efficiency. It is therefore provided in Clause 2 of the Bill that orders authorizing the formation of new undertakings, the formation of joint boards or the amalgamation of water undertakings, may also give all the necessary powers. This will eliminate the second stage of procedure which may at present be an indispensable legal requirement.
Clause 6 of the Bill gives power to survey and search for water on land which it is proposed to purchase. Your Lordships are aware that water undertakers must sometimes incur very considerable expenditure on major engineering works, such as dams for the impounding of reservoirs, and there is no certainty that water will be obtained from a piece of ground with underground water until a well or borehole has been sunk and the yield has been tested. A good deal of exploratory work is necessary to ensure that sites chosen as a source of water supply are suitable. The choice of sites and the planning of ancillary work, such
1006
as filtration plant, reservoirs and pumping stations, will often depend upon the suitability of the sites chosen for the head works. In many cases the undertakers find no difficulty in securing permission to survey the land before it is acquired, or entering into provisional agreements for purchase, but there are instances in which compulsory powers are necessary. Under the present rules, the surveys which are essential for the success of the schemes cannot take place until a compulsory purchase order has been made and the necessary procedure has been complied with. This includes the service of a notice to treat, with a consequent obligation to purchase the land. This means that the land has to be paid for, whether or not it is suitable for the purpose for which it is required.
The Government consider that it is in the public interest that undertakers should be able to avoid the considerable trouble, delay and expense of obtaining compulsory powers of acquisition before they are certain that the land is suitable. The clause therefore proposes that the Minister may authorize undertakers to survey land they contemplate acquiring, and to carry out exploratory works in order to ascertain its suitability for the provision of a water supply. An opportunity will be given to owners and occupiers to make representations to the Minister, and provision is made for payment of compensation for loss or damage incurred. There are similar powers for planning purposes in Section 103 (9) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1937. These are the principal provisions of this small and, I hope, uncontroversial Bill. I recommend it to your Lordships for a Second Reading because it will certainly remove a number of difficulties that are at present hindering and delaying the important work of supplying water to the public. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
4.27 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, it has fallen to my unfortunate lot to try to read and master this Bill. It is a Bill which does not seem to have a great principle underlying it, but there is one feature about it to which I take quite strong objection. We have here a Bill which occupies only eleven clauses, and yet there

1007
are no fewer than fifty-one alterations of Statute by reference. It is, therefore, an extremely difficult Bill to read and comprehend. I hope that some notice will be taken of a protest of this nature, because this Bill could have been drafted in much simpler terms for the benefit not only of those who will have to consider it in Parliament but of those who will eventually have to work the Act in the country. The way the Bill is drawn will waste an immense amount of time, because a large number of people have to try to administer these water Acts.
I have no such comment to make with regard to Clause 1 of the Bill, which seems to me quite admirable. It gets rid of the definition it does not like and substitutes a new one in its place. If the draftsman had continued in this way throughout the Bill the comments which I made originally would not have been needed. But those of your Lordships who have read this Bill—and I believe the noble Earl will feel as I do, if he has studied it—will no doubt agree that the rest of it might well be much improved in form. With regard to this new definition of statutory water undertakers, to which I have no objection, I would ask only this question: Was it intended by this new definition to limit rather than to extend? If your Lordships will look at Section 59 of the Water Act, there statutory undertakers are defined as:
"any company, local authority, board, committee, or other person supplying water under an enactment … "
In this Bill the definition is:
"… any company, local authority, board, committee, or other person authorised by a local enactment to supply water … "
When we come to the definition of an enactment, which is also contained in Clause 59 of the Water Act, we see that it is:
"any Act of Parliament, whether public, general, local or private, any statutory order, or any provision in an Act of Parliament or statutory order."
I put this to the noble Earl to see whether he intends to limit the definition. I know that it is widened in another respect, but in some ways it will be limited by the terms of Clause 1 of this Bill. As I understand Clause 2, that is only to enable orders under Sections 9, 12 and 26 to be telescoped. If that is its object I have no objection to it.
1008
Then we come to Clause 3. I do not think the noble Earl dealt with this Clause 1n his opening speech, and I should like to ask him what exactly one part of it means. The clause states:
"A compulsory purchase order … may be confirmed by the Minister if made and submitted by the applicants for the order under the said Section twenty-three or by any undertakers to whom the order under the said Section nine relates, as the case may be, at any time before the order takes effect. … "
Which order is the order to take effect? I am not at all sure on this, but I suspect that it is the order setting up the undertakers. Assuming, now, that the compulsory purchase order has been made effective before the order setting up the undertakers as water undertakers has been made, I would ask the noble Earl: What happens if the order making them water undertakers is never made? Yet the water undertakers are the people to whom a compulsory purchase order has been given and in whom at that moment the land is vested. If I have read it wrongly I would only call in aid again the confusing way in which this Bill has been drafted.
I feel that I must make one comment on Clause 4 (2):
"An Order made under subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the principal Act on the application of persons who propose to become statutory water undertakers may authorize the applicants to supply water in bulk notwithstanding that they are not authorized by that order to supply water otherwise than in bulk."
As I understand that phrase, it means that if they are people who are authorized to supply water in bulk they may be authorized by this new order to supply water in bulk! But if it means anything else I should like to know. I have read the clause three or four times and I do not see why people who are authorized to supply water in bulk should not supply water in bulk, or that we should need these words in the Bill at all.
Now I come to Clause 5. I should like to know what is the purpose of Clause 5 (1):
"No licence shall be required under subsection (3) of section fourteen of the principal Act … in respect of the carrying out of any experimental boring or other work for the purpose of ascertaining the presence of underground water … if the work is carried out, with the consent of the Minister … "

1009
I should like to know what the Minister does, except give a licence to show that the work has his consent, and what is the real point of difference between "consent" and "licence." It is the Minister who gives the licence and the Minister who gives the consent; and it would be interesting to know what is the difference, because consent comes in a letter which, after all, is in effect a licence from the Minister to do that particular work. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell me at some stage exactly why these words have been put in and what is their effect.
With regard to Clause 5 (3) it is rather more than a drafting point that I want to make. It says there:
"References in the said Section fourteen to the construction or extension of any well, borehole, or other work for the purpose of abstracting underground water shall be deemed to include references to the installation or modification of machinery or other apparatus for the purpose of abstracting additional quantities of such water."
Does this mean that every single time that a water undertaking want to modify a piece of machinery they have to come back to somebody to get consent? I think that is quite unnecessary. We have quite enough cases of people having to apply for licences or consents, and I do not think we should make it any more difficult for these people. Water undertakings are, after all, highly responsible bodies and if they want to modify their machinery I do not see why they should have to come back to some Government Department to gets its leave.
There are three more points on which I want just to touch. One concerns Clause 6 (5). If these people, by making waterworks or anything similar, cause damage by water flooding over, then—on the well-known legal principle that if you build a dam and it bursts, you are liable to some one for damages—I presume they are liable. The person who is liable is the person who accumulates the water. I suppose there are many legal cases on that. But if we are providing that they should not be exonerated from any damage in that respect—and I should like the noble Earl to look into this point before the Committee stage—we ought to provide also that they are similarly liable or not exonerated from payment of compensation, if by their works they cause some trap on the land into which some unsuspecting person falls. If they do make
1010
a trap and somebody falls into, say, an unlighted hole, the persons responsible for the work ought still to be liable if they have not taken proper steps to fence that place or to illuminate it
On Clause 8, there is another small point which I wish to make. The clause states:
"… a local authority shall not be entitled to require that water supplied for domestic purposes to premises used as a house shall be taken by meter by reason only that part of the premises is used by the same occupier for purposes of a profession."
I do not know that the word "profession" has ever been defined, but I gather that that, of course, is probably put in to try to cover the case of a doctor or a dentist who uses a certain amount of additional water in the carrying out of his profession. It would not apply, of course, to anybody in the legal profession. It would only very remotely apply to anybody in the Church for an occasional baptism. I should like to know what is meant by the word "profession." So many people nowadays call themselves "professional persons" who really are carrying on a trade or business that I think it would be just as well to know exactly what is meant by the term "profession."
I was rather amazed to find these words in Clause 10, subsection (3), and perhaps at some stage the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would enlighten us upon this subsection:
"Paragraph 10 of the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which restricts the right of appeal to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal on application made under that Schedule) shall cease to have effect."
So we are now saying that without the leave of the Court of Appeal, there may be an appeal to the House of Lords under the Water Act; at any rate, under those parts of the Water Act which apply to the compulsory acquisition of land. That may be right or it may be wrong, but we have to remember that there is still another Act of Parliament in operation—namely, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946—which applies in every case to the compulsory acquisition of land. That Act still provides that there cannot be an appeal to the House of Lords without the assent of the Court of Appeal. Therefore, if this is a right thing to do here we ought also to alter Paragraph 15 (2) of the

1011
First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946. I do not expect the noble Earl to give a reply this evening upon that matter.
I have now outlined some of the points which have occurred to me in reading this Bill. Although it consists of eight pages only, it is one of the most difficult and tedious to read and understand that I have ever encountered. If my noble friends think that I may be exaggerating, I would ask them to get a copy of the Bill and read it for themselves. They would then be able to judge whether the complaint of mine has not a quite substantial justification, at any rate. But we are certainly not going to vote against this measure on the Second Reading. I should, however, like some explanation and, if possible, Government Amendments concerning the points which I have raised, if the Government think that they are substantial, when we come to the Committee stage. I am all in favour of giving these new town development corporations the powers of water undertakers. They must have them. We ought, I think, to make the Bill as easily understandable as possible before it leaves this House. The Bill was initiated here and when it goes to another place there should not be any opportunity to say, "They did not do their work very well there, and we will therefore try to amend it." As I have said, we certainly shall not in any way obstruct or oppose the passage of the Bill, but we would suggest that the noble Earl should consult the draftsmen to see if they cannot make it a little easier to understand.
4.43 p.m.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for a moment only. As chairman of a fairly large water undertaking in the south of England, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said about this example of legislation by reference. We are short in our office staff already. This is an important measure in many ways, and it simply bristles with references to Acts which we may or may not have at hand. Some little time ago, a Bill was presented to this House which, in the case of each section which referred to a previous statutory enactment, gave in brackets the effect of that enactment.
1012
Many of your Lordships thought that that was a very good method of presenting such a Bill, and certainly, in a case like this which affects a great many of the public, I think the effect of these references to existing Acts should be made quite clear. As I have said before, most offices of water companies, like other undertakings, are short of staff and they have many problems to meet. They have to increase their water supply by borings and other methods, and they have to take practical measures in many directions. Their time ought not to be taken up with legislative conundrums. Their position ought to be made clear in the Statutes under which they act. I should therefore like to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in asking that something should be done to make the Bill a little clearer and that particulars should be given of the sections of any Act which it is proposed to amend.
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, before the noble Earl rises to reply, I also should like to associate myself as a layman with what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said, because it is, in the case of a layman who has not anything like the noble Lord's Parliamentary experience, almost impossible for a private individual, in a Bill which was only ordered to be printed thirteen days ago, to begin to get to the bottom of what the inferences of this Bill may be. That being so, I am merely rising to say that it could well have been delayed until after Christmas, because any delay in water undertakings now is not due to acquisition troubles and difficulties; it is entirely due to materials. Therefore, it would not matter if this Bill did not get on the Statute Book until next July. I want to enter a caveat on Clause 2, as I may find it necessary on Committee stage either to ask for an explanation or to move an Amendment with regard to that phrase which occurs in the Water Act of 1945, about statutory water undertakers being allowed "to take water from any stream or other source." I will not delay your Lordships this evening, but "other source" may involve, by reckless underground extraction, a very serious effect on the whole economy of the countryside, and not only on the farms themselves. That is really my purpose in rising: to say that I reserve the right to

1013
raise this question in Committee and to speak much more fully upon it.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think we shall all agree in principle with what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said about the undesirability of legislation by reference. Your Lordships will remember that the late Lord Salisbury was the champion of a school of thought which attacked any Bill whch contained references to previous Acts without quoting them. Of course, the most important difficulty that arises when you try to apply this principle is that it is apt to make Acts extremely unwieldy if you have to quote in full passages in other Statutes to which the Act refers. What I would gladly do—and I hope this will satisfy both noble Lords who have raised the matter—is to go into the question with the draftsman between now and the Committee stage of the Bill, and if it is possible to improve the drafting in the way that noble Lords desire, then I shall be able to recommend some alternative when we get to that stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said that owing to the construction of its clauses, the study of this Bill required very great patience and considerable intelligence, and I entirely agree with him that it is an extremely difficult and technical Bill. That makes it all the more important for me, because I am most anxious to give the noble Lord an accurate reply, not to venture impromptu on its effect, but to wait until I have had an opportunity of consulting my advisers about the points of construction to which the noble Lord referred. I think he will agree that the majority of his points are points which could quite conveniently be dealt with during the Committee stage of the Bill. The one question which I think I can answer immediately is that about the limiting effect of the new definition of "statutory water undertakers." In fact, the definition includes Public Acts as well as Local Acts, so that it is not limiting in effect. As for the other points raised by the noble Lord, I think it would be wiser to leave them until we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. I will also
1014
deal with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask whether he would look again at this definition, because it does not, I think, apply to any authority under a Public General Act? I only suggest that he should not leave that answer thinking he had satisfied me, but should have another look at that point before the Committee stage.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will certainly look at it again.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MANDATED AND TRUST TERRITORIES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Application and modification of enactments.
(5) Subject to the last foregoing subsection, this Act shall apply to, and an Order in Council thereunder may modify, an enactment notwithstanding that the effect is to impose a charge on the people or on public funds.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move a Privilege Amendment. That is the omission of subsection (5) of Clauses I, which gives power to modify enactments imposing a charge.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Amnion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND PHARMACISTS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock.