Lords Sitting of 15 April 1958

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  FARM BUILDINGS RESEARCH
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made in the research upon farm buildings.]
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the Farm Buildings Research Committee set up a year ago to review and co-ordinate current research on farm buildings and to recommend new or additional research on the subject, is actively engaged on the first part of its task. A comprehensive examination of all the existing literature is being made and information collected on research in progress both in this country and abroad. A special unit has been established to carry out surveys designed to obtain detailed information about existing farm buildings, successful adaptations of old buildings and the most pressing immediate needs of the farmers.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. I am certain that when the Report is received it will be comprehensive and of help to the farming community.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
  LORD FORBES: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Farm Buildings Association have expressed grave concern that there is much inefficient construction and reconstruction of farm buildings going on; and since public funds are now available for this type of work, will he treat this matter as extremely urgent?
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his capacity as agricultural Minister, will be delighted to provide advice as to present construction. However, the Question on the Order Paper relates to research, which is not in my hands, although I answer for it in Parliament.

  FARM IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
  LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of applications for improvement grants from owners or occupiers of farms of less than 50 acres in extent necessitating an expenditure of not more than £100 for grant purposes and if any such schemes have been approved.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, it is one of the published conditions of the Farm Improvement Scheme that only improvements costing £100 or more may qualify for grant. The records do not distinguish applications submitted, in spite of the published conditions, for grants on expenditure of less than £100, but no such applications will have been approved.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, may I call attention to the difficulty under which this particular scheme is being worked and ask the noble Earl whether it will be possible for an owner or an occupier to embrace two schemes on one particular farm, each costing less 'than £100, in order that he may qualify for grant? The difficulty is that a scheme costing £90 does not qualify for grant, but a scheme costing £105 or thereabouts receives a grant of £35. This seems hard on the small farmers. Is it possible to amalgamate single schemes on one farm so that a grant may be obtained?
  LORD FORBES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will bring to the notice of the Minister responsible

  695
  for Scottish affairs the fact that considerably more work on farm improvement schemes would have been carried out during this very bad winter had there not been intolerable delay in approving schemes, which have to be sent to Edinburgh instead of being dealt with on a regional basis?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I deal with the last question first? My noble friend Lord Strathclyde is sitting beside me and I am sure he will pass on to his colleague the remarks of the noble Lord. As to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, the £100 relates to the application. There can be in an application any number of schemes, and providing that they together amount to £100 they will then be eligible for grant. We bring home as best we can to applicants that they may join together as many different schemes as they can in order to raise the total to more than £100.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, and I hope it will receive due publicity so that people may know exactly what they can do.

  WATER BILL [H.L.]
  2.40 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the Bill to be considered on Report.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Clause 1:
  Obtaining supplies to meet drought.
  1.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied that by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any locality exists or is threatened, he may, on the application of any statutory water undertakers who supply water in that locality, make an order containing such provisions for any of the following purposes as appear to him to be expedient with a view to meeting the deficiency, that is to say—

  (a) for authorising the undertakers, subject to any specified conditions or restrictions, to take water from any specified source for a period not exceeding six months, or

  696

  (b) for suspending or modifying, subject to any specified conditions, and for a period not exceeding six months, any restriction or obligation to which the undertakers are subject as respects—

  (i) the taking of water from any source,

  (ii) the discharge of compensation water, or

  the filtration or other treatment of water, and the Minister may include in the order such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as appear to him to be expedient for those purposes.

  (5) In the exercise of his power to make orders under this section the Minister shall have regard to the interests of all persons concerned in the conservation or use of the water to which the order relates, whether for the purposes of agriculture, fisheries, industry or navigation, or for other purposes.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (1), after the first "may" to insert: "subject to the provisions of this section". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment with which we start the proceedings to-day is really only a drafting Amendment, and it goes with Amendment No. 8. Perhaps I may consider them briefly together. These two Amendments fulfil the undertaking I gave to my noble friend Lord Simon on the Committee stage, that I would put down an Amendment dealing with the abstraction of water from the Thames by the Metropolitan Water Board. These Amendments make it clear that an order under this Bill cannot authorise anything contrary to the provisions of Section 162 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932. This was the point which worried my noble friend, and I hope that these two Amendments will put his mind at rest. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 7. after ("may") insert the said words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Before any statutory water undertakers make an application under this section they shall consult with any river board upon whom notice of the application will be required to be served by the First Schedule to this Act."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was before the House on Second Reading and in Committee it was generally welcomed on all sides; the idea

  697
  of sweeping away the Defence Regulations and replacing them by Statute was generally approved. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, indeed, went so far as to say that this Bill was not rightly described as a Water Bill, but should have been called a Procedural Bill. Be that as it may, there was a general feeling that, in doing away with the chastisement by whips of the old Defence Regulations, we should make sure that we did not burden ourselves with chastisement by scorpions in a new Statute. It was clear that, as the Bill proceeded through the House, we should have to take particular care that all legitimate rights and interests were properly safeguarded, and that these, in their turn, did not jeopardise the water industry, for whose aid this Bill is chiefly designed. I ventured to suggest that it appeared that the interests and statutory duties of river boards were not adequately protected by this Bill, and I felt that we should have to give this matter careful attention as it proceeded.
  Perhaps I should at once declare an interest. I am a director of one of the larger statutory water undertakings, the Bristol Water Works Company. Further, I have the honour to be associated with the British Waterworks Association and also with the River Boards Association. To the uninitiated, it might appear that I should have to walk upon a tightrope in anything that I might say to-day. I am happy to say, however, that that is not the case, because there is no basic hostility between the river boards and the water industry, though it would be idle to pretend that their interests are always absolutely identical. The matter is difficult enough, and I must say to your Lordships that in this matter I do have to walk, like Agag, a little delicately before the Lords. I wish to emphasise at this point—because I am moving a number of Amendments that I am not in any way trying to act selfishly on behalf of the river boards, or seeking by amendment anything which would by any stretch of the imagination be of a wrecking nature or jeopardise in the slightest degree the rights and duties of the water undertakings. Indeed, my close connection with the water industry is such that I am the last person who would want to do anything inimical to their best interests.
  I am bound to admit that, in my discussions with the water industry, I have found some people a little doubtful of the value of some of these proposed Amendments—I will not go further than that. River boards are the authorities entrusted by Parliament with the regulation of all rivers and, streams for three statutory functions and purposes. Their functions are concerned with land drainage, the prevention of pollution, and fisheries. Therefore, these river boards are vitally concerned with any proposals which may have the effect, either directly or indirectly, of reducing the flows in rivers or streams, particularly, of course, the reduction of flows at time of low water or drought, which is just the time when emergency orders under this Bill would normally be made. I am happy to say that, generally speaking, good will between the river boards and the water undertakings is such that water undertakers normally recognise the interests of river boards in these matters; and before embarking on any scheme which may affect the interests of a river board they approach that river board and obtain its views.
  I suggest that it is not sufficient, when we are trying to frame a Statute, that we should rely solely on this good will, because it might at any time be dissipated. Therefore, on the Committee stage, I moved an Amendment designed to make obligatory the consultations which take place at present as a result of this general good will. My Amendment would have imposed on the Minister a duty to consult the river boards before granting their applications. The Amendment was accepted in principle by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He thought it went too wide, however, and, further, that the matter could probably best be dealt with by administrative procedure. He gave me an undertaking (I quote from Hansard of March 11, col. 53) when he said:
  "I can give him an undertaking that my right honourable friend the Minister will consider putting some advice to water undertakers on this particular point in any circular which is sent out dealing with procedure under the Bill."
  On that assurance I agreed to withdraw the Amendment. Since that time, however, I and my friends have given the matter careful consideration, and I have ventured this afternoon to table a somewhat similar Amendment designed to the

  699
  same ends. We feel that it would be altogether preferable that some words should be inserted in the Bill to make this matter of consultation clear, rather than that we should rely on good will, on the one hand, or on an administrative instruction in a departmental circular. Since the Committee proceedings there have been consultations with the officials of the Ministry, and I think there may be hope now that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to accept this Amendment as now drafted. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
  2.50 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to add one word in rather a different sense from what has been said by my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. It is always a great pleasure to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in regard to a Bill, because we all feel that he always takes the point made and does not answer another and quite different point, and so get out of the matter that way. He will remember as well as I do what happened when the Bill setting up these river boards was passed by the Government of noble Lords opposite. He will remember that in the debate that took place on that Bill it was pointed out that the pollution of rivers had gone on for generation after generation under the protection of an ancient Statute, and that if the rivers of this country were to be properly cleansed it would require a very large contribution by the Government to avoid injustice to local communities. However, that argument was not attended to by His late Majesty's Government at that time, and I am perfectly certain that it would not be given much attention by Her Majesty's Government at this time.
  We are therefore left with these river boards with the limited powers they possess to organise the cleansing and purification of our rivers, and that at a time when we have to look forward in the foreseeable future to the use over and over again by the population of the water of the rivers if they are to be adequately supplied. In these circumstances I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that the last thing in the world they should do now is to treat these river boards, which
  700
  have such important functions, with disrespect, and that these boards ought properly to be consulted in matters of this kind by statutory right. If you set up a body with very important functions and then constantly slight it—and I have seen that done in legislation, again and again, and always with bad results—you can never get the best out of the authority you set up. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will give serious consideration to the argument of my noble friend Lord Waldegrave.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I should like briefly but strongly to reinforce what has been said on behalf of this Amendment. I find that the request for consultation, which I believe to be a very reasonable and natural one, comes from other parts of the country than those from which previous speakers come. I find that this principle is very much sought after, and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to put a rather different point of view from that which has been put already. First, much as I admire the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I cannot associate myself with the tribute which has been paid to him, that of being so reasonable and willing to meet every point of view. That may be so in this case—he may even accept this Amendment because of great pressure from his own side; but I do not think we should want to be associated with this particular tribute, although we should certainly pay other tributes to him.
  On this particular Amendment I would remind the House of the circumstances under which the machinery of Clause 1 comes into operation. If your Lordships would look at the clause you will see that if the Minister is satisfied that as a result of
  "an exceptional shortage of rain a serious deficiency of supplies of water exists or is threatened,"
  it is open to the water authority to make this application. Your Lordships will appreciate that there may be serious hardship existing at the time when the application is being made. People may be actually without water or restricted to using it at certain hours of the day. To suggest, in those circumstances that, in addition to having to make the application (and I think it is right that certain

  701
  steps should be open to the authority) the water authority should have to embark on the process of consultation—which may be lengthy—is unrealistic. Although the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, emphasises the friendly relationship which exists between the river boards and the water authorities, the fact is that they will have diametrically opposed interests. The interests of one will be to draw off the water the interests of the other will be to prevent the water from being drawn off.
  To start consultation when the public is short of water seems to me unrealistic. By all means let them discuss it in a friendly way, but do not make it a statutory obligation, with all the arguments involved, about the means of consultation and the grievances that may arise because so-called consultation is not proper consultation. I think the Government would be wiser not to accept this Amendment but to say that the river boards will have the opportunity of making their representations at any inquiry which is held by the Government in the matter. Of course, there is nothing to prevent informal talks—in fact, I should hope that there would be informal talks; and the authorities would be wise if they held them. But to insist on consultation at a time of crisis, at a time of serious shortage of water, really makes nonsense of the whole thing.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I may rise again I should like to say this.
  LORD SILKIN: If the noble Lord rises again I shall rise again to answer.
  LORD SALTOUN: I only wish to explain what I said, which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has misapprehended.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
  2.58 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, there is no doubt whatever that I can speak, and I will try to please everybody. I shall not be able to do that in regard to many matters in this Bill, but on this particular clause I think I can. I hope that I shall be able to return some of the nice things said about me by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, who has been cut short in mid-flow. I hope that I shall be able to show the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that he need not have batted the compliment back to my side quite so savagely, because I think I can meet
  702
  him too. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that at a. time of crisis one does not want to have long and complicated negotiations; but I think the time when these negotiations would take place would be when there was the threat of a crisis, the threat of drought. Then consultations are needed.
  My noble friend Lord Waldegrave moved on the Committee stage an Amendment which, as he explained to us, would have required my right honourable friend the Minister to consult the river boards before making the order. I pointed out to your Lordships that, while a condition which would bind the Minister was unacceptable—for, I think, the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has emphasised—it was the intention, and always has been the intention, that statutory water undertakers should as a matter of course consult with the appropriate river board whenever there was a threat of drought; and that is really when the consultation will take place. That is why I am willing to accept Lord Waldegrave's Amendment, for I believe that it will go a long way to meet the doubts which were expressed in your Lordships' House on this particular matter at the Committee stage.
  The Amendment does not, I think, go so far as to bring about a stultification of negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has quite accurately foreseen, by producing a great paraphernalia of consultation and machinery just when swift action is required to forestall a crisis. I do not think that is the moment at which my noble friend Lord Waldegrave anticipated that there would be consultation; and that is not the moment, I imagine, when consultation under his Amendment would take place. The moment when there is a threat of a drought, not when the drought is actually upon us, is, I believe, the right time for consultation to take place, on the level which the noble Earl suggested in his Amendment and not on the level that he originally suggested. If I understood him correctly, I am perfectly prepared on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to accept his Amendment.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to inform the House, when does the threat of a drought arise? What is the difference between the threat of a

  703
  drought and a drought? I understand that officially the definition of "drought" is the absence of rain for fourteen consecutive days. When does the threat of a drought arise—when we have had one day without any rain, or ten days, twelve days or what?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have no right to reply, except by leave of the House. But the noble Lord has asked me a question. This is a technical matter and a term of art into which we went in some detail on the Second Reading of the Bill. Roughly, the difference between the threat of a drought and a drought is, in the first case when you think you are going to get no water, and in the second case when you have got no water.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am, of course, extremely grateful to the noble Lord in that he has seen fit to accept this Amendment. I entirely agree with his definition of the difference between the Amendment as now moved and the Amendment I moved in Committee. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had not been away—I think due to ill-health—when the Committee stage took place, he would have known that we had some play on the words in regard to when a drought was not a drought. I believe that this Bill does not use the word "drought" (although it does appear in the Memorandum accompanying the Bill), because that is a legally defined phrase; the words used are "exceptional shortage of rain". I do not know whether that will help the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth.
  In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for accepting this Amendment perhaps I may say that I do not think that the fears of Lord Silkin are justified. I do not believe that it is right to suggest, as he suggested, that in all cases the interests will be different, and that there will therefore be a blank objection or refusal. If this industry is going to run at all smoothly, we must assume that though one interest may have a priority over another, there will be reasonableness; and it is suggested that we should have these consultations rather than run into head-on statutory collision at a later date. I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment as a result of the undertaking which I gave on the Committee stage to my noble friend Lord Simon, to consider whether the power in subsection (1) of this clause to make supplementary provisions is wide enough to include removal conditions. I think my Amendment makes it clear that the execution of works by water undertakers may be made subject to any specified conditions and restrictions. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 15, after ("undertakers") insert (" subject to any specified conditions and restrictions ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.5 p.m.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "whether for the purposes of agriculture", and insert "including those concerned with the prevention of pollution". The noble Earl said: My Lords, in a sense I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships at all with moving this Amendment, because I had greatly hoped, from what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft said in Committee, that he himself would have been able to put down an Amendment to cover this point, which he described as a good one. On that occasion he accepted my Amendment in principle, and I should like to quote his words because there had been an intervention by my noble friend Lord Saltoun, who had suggested that he was going to be fascinated by the noble Lord's reply. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, replied that he was not going to fascinate my noble friend at all but he was going to give him satisfaction, because he was going to say that he would accept the Amendment in principle, if not actually in form. He went on then to say [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 43), col. 64]:
  "It is not acceptable in, its present form, but it touches on a point which I agree needs to be looked into".
  Later on he said:
  "I am therefore prepared to give my noble friend Lord Waldegrave an assurance that we will, between now and Report, consider this point to see whether we can put down an Amendment which will meet the good point he has made".
  I am rather disappointed that he has not seen fit to put down such an Amendment at this stage. Your Lordships will

  705
  remember that very little time was allowed between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, and I prefaced my remarks at that time by saying that as we had had little time for consultation it might well be that our Amendments were out of form. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, most generously gave an apology to your Lordships for the shortage of time and promised longer time, as indeed we have had, between Committee and Report. But I am bound to point out that the time that we have had, quite a long time in itself, has been, I will not say eaten into by, but has been alt the same time as, the Easter Recess, which may be—I would not know—the reason why the noble Lord has not found time from his other duties in the Recess to table an Amendment. I have therefore tabled an Amendment in a revised form which I hope will now be acceptable in form as well as in substance.
  We have been to a good deal of trouble in this regard. I am quite sure that it matters not who does the work provided it has been done. The point is quite a simple but an important one. It is, as I said in Committee, simply to ensure that the prevention of pollution will be one of the matters taken into consideration by the Minister when he makes these emergency orders. Clause 5 lays on the Minister a duty to have regard to the interests of all the persons concerned in the conservation or use of water to which the Order relates; but then it goes on to identify or to specify those interests and uses, and it specifies agriculture, fisheries, industry and navigation, and omits prevention of pollution. If the conservation and the use of water in our rivers for any purpose other than for the purpose of the water undertakers is to be considered and taken into account, then surely prevention of pollution must he one of the matters to be taken into account: and considered. The river boards will not be able to perform their statutory functions which Parliament has laid upon them if that is not so.
  I hesitate to say which of the interests specified in the Bill is the more important or the most important, but I have no hesitation in saying that the prevention of pollution is not the least important. Yet in the Bill as drafted it is not mentioned at all. If the flow of a river is to be reduced by an emergency order under
  706
  Clause 1 of the Bill, then one of the matters that must be carefully considered is what will be the effect on pollution of that reduction of flow. What will be the effect on this river, in its state of reduced flow, of the discharge of high temperature cooling waters, of trade effluents, of sewage effluents and the like? If we state that these are matters which have to be considered, why should pollution not be mentioned among them? I therefore beg to move this Amendment. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 also go with it, for the three are all interlocked and really make one sentence. As the matter is a little difficult to follow perhaps, with the permission of your Lordships, I may explain how the subsection would read if the three Amendments were approved:
  "In the exercise of his power to make orders under this section the Minister shall have regard to the interests of all persons concerned in the conservation or use of the water to which the order relates, including those concerned with the prevention of pollution, agriculture, fisheries industry and navigation, and with the conservation and use of such water for other purposes."
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("relates") to ("agriculture") and insert ("including those concerned with the prevention of pollution,")—(Earl Waldegrave.)
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. I would only say that some words—such as "the practice of"—would have to be added to the Amendment before the word "agriculture" because it is not intended to refer to those concerned "in the prevention of" agriculture and should read perhaps:
  "including those concerned with the prevention of pollution or the practice of agriculture".
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not know whether I should answer that point, but I suggest that such words are not necessary and that the wording of the Amendment as drafted does make sense, since the verb which governs the matter is "concerned".
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment purports to add the prevention of pollution to those interests which my right honourable friend must take into account before he makes an order. I agree, of course, that these are interests to which my right honourable friend ought to have regard—in fact, they are already included in the general words

  707
  "for other purposes" at the end of the subsection. The difficulty I see about giving them special mention is that they are not the only interests which are now seeking admission to subsection (5). We have had representations from the Nature Conservancy that there should be a reference to the preservation of flora and fauna; and there are some local authorities who would like to see a reference to other statutory water undertakings. For all I know, there may be, and probably are, other interests which will be encouraged to apply for admission should this Amendment and those which go with it be accepted. I do not want to specify other interests in detail for fear of putting ideas into their head, so that they will come forward, but in fact we offered to the River Boards' Association an Amendment which they did not think went quite wide enough; and other interests have come forward since the Committee stage.
  We have therefore given the whole question of this subsection further thought. What worries me is that it this subsection were amended in the way suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Saltoun, there would be serious danger of its becoming a catalogue of all the interests to which my right honourable friend ought to have regard and thus of creating a presumption that any interests not specifically mentioned were excluded. It would be, in effect, a kind of Animal Farm Amendment, saying that all interests are equal but some are more equal than others. In view of the fact that one of the rivers concerned is the Orwell, perhaps that is only poetic justice.
  I believe, however, that I can find a way out of the difficulty. In these circumstances (which I hope your Lordships will consider carefully, because I believe that they are valid) it seems best to omit all the words after "relates" in line 41. If that were done, subsection (5) of the clause would read:
  "In the exercise of his power to make orders under this section the Minister shall have regard to the interests of all persons concerned in the conservation or use of the water to which the order relates."
  I believe that that would cover everything, and I feel that any interest which has been or could be advanced can find no quarrel with that proposed Amendment. If the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, would
  708
  agree, I will move on Third Reading an Amendment on those lines. This will not affect the Minister's duty to have regard to all these interests, but I believe that, while making it incumbent upon the Minister to have concern for the interests of those whose views have been put forward this afternoon, it will avoid any invidious distinction or comparison and will make certain that all interests are statutorily covered. If the noble Lord will take that as a solution to the problem, as I believe it is, I shall be grateful.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I shall be very willing to withdraw the Amendment that I have now put forward, on the undertaking given by the noble Lord that on Third Reading he will table an Amendment to make the clause read as he has stated, so that no interest shall be specified nor others, by inference, held to be not covered. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, is the noble Lord in charge of the Bill prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of his Minister that this pollution problem will be one of the matters which will always be given an attention before an order is made? I believe it to be essential that some undertaking of that kind should be given.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to give that undertaking on behalf of my right honourable friend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (5), to leave out "or navigation" and insert, "navigation or amenity". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a number of Amendments in which the Council for the Preservation of Rural England are concerned. Naturally they are anxious that, if there are a number of considerations expressly mentioned in this subsection, amenity should be among them; but in the circumstances created by my noble friend the Minister in undertaking to introduce an Amendment on Third Reading, my Amendment would clearly no longer be appropriate. Accordingly, I do not propose to move it. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that under the new form of words as they will

  709
  exist after the Amendment which he proposes to move, amenity considerations will be satisfactorily covered.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order in speaking to an Amendment which has not been moved, but I can readily assure my noble friend Lord Conesford that it was with his Amendment very much in view that I decided the best way would be to move an Amendment on Third Reading. As I have already explained to your Lordships, I can certainly give the noble Lord the undertaking for which he asks.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 42, at end insert—
  (" (6) An order under this section shall not authorise the doing of anything contrary to the provisions of section one hundred and sixty-two of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932 (which empowers the Metropolitan Water Board to abstract water from the Thames subject to the conditions set out in the section).").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.20 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think that the few moments that have elapsed since the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, answered something that I did not say, in an almost Governmental fashion, have shown what I said about the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to be true: he meets one's point either with assent or refusal and does not meet some alien point and get out of the matter that way. The present Amendment that I am moving is purely consequential, I think, on Amendment No. 2, and merely applies it to Scotland. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 27, after ("Scotland") insert ("for any reference to a river board there shall be substituted a reference to a river purification authority and").—(Lord Saltoun.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, after the remarks of my noble friend Lord Saltoun, it would be particularly churlish of me not to accept his Amendment.
  A NOBLE LORD: That is why he said them.
  LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord has a particularly suspicious mind. I do
  710
  not intend at this stage of the afternoon to adopt a churlish attitude. I can accept his Amendment, but in principle only, because I must look at the drafting. I am told by experts that in addition to the reference to a river purification authority there should be a reference to a fishery district board, an organisation that we have not so far encountered. If the noble Lord will allow me to look at the drafting, I certainly give an undertaking that I will accept it in principle.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I shall be very happy with that undertaking and" with your Lordships' leave, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Revocation of Defence Regulations 50A and 56]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, Amendments 10 and 11 go together and, with your Lordships' permission, I will discuss them very briefly. They are virtually drafting Amendments, put down to meet an undertaking I gave on the Committee stage to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. Under the subsection as we originally drafted it, it might have been held that all existing orders under Defence Regulations would continue in force until March 31, 1960. The purpose of my Amendments is to make it clear that the subsection does nothing to prolong orders which already carry an earlier date of expiration. As I say, they are only drafting Amendments, and I hope your Lordships will approve them. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 38, leave out ("not been revoked").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT': My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 40, after ("sixty") insert ("continued in force").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Interpretation
  (3) Any power of making orders under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall include power—

  (a) from time to time to extend a period specified in a previous order, but not so as

  711
  to extend beyond a year any period which under this Act is not to exceed six months.

  (b) to vary a previous order in any other respect.

  LORD WISE: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary because in a later Amendment I make reference to internal drainage boards, and at the moment there is nothing in this Bill having definite reference to internal drainage boards. I am asked to move the Amendment because it is desired that the definition contained in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which refers to internal drainage areas and boards, should be included in the present Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Amendment and also my further Amendment which has reference to the internal drainage board. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 7, at end insert—
  (" 'internal drainage board' has the meaning assigned to it by the Land Drainage Act, 1930;").—(Lord Wise.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the two Amendments, Nos. 12 and 16, really go together, and perhaps I might answer both the points at once. What the noble Lord, Lord Wise, is trying to do is to ensure that internal drainage boards are given notice of any proposal to take water or to reduce the discharge of compensation water which would affect a watercourse over which they exercise functions. I fully appreciate the noble Lord's concern with the interests of the internal drainage boards, particularly bearing in mind, as I do, that he and I come from the same part of East Anglia, where internal drainage boards are important organisations. But perhaps I can explain why it was not thought necessary to give notice to these boards. It was not thought necessary to give notice to them in the pre-war temporary legislation dealing with drought (the Act of 1934); nor do they receive notices under the Water Act, 1945, of proposals to take water permanently. I think it is desirable to keen to an absolute minimum the number of notices to be served under this emergency procedure. Do not let us lose sight of the fact that this is an emergency procedure.
  There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, will know, a great number of these boards.
  712
  The river boards who receive notices are, however, the beneficent parents of the internal drainage boards and they have land drainage powers. I think they can be expected to look after the same interests. In particular cases the internal drainage boards may be able to make administrative arrangements with the river boards to be kept informed. I do not think we want to go further than we have done in this Bill, and I think when we drafted it we had the needs of the internal drainage boards in mind. I have looked at this matter carefully since the noble Lord put it on the Order Paper, and I can assure him that the interests of the internal drainage boards are properly covered. If he would like to think about it again and consult with his friends I shall be happy to hear his views, but I am advised at the moment that his fears are not well founded and that the interests of the internal drainage boards are completely covered and protected by the Bill.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, may I just make a further remark about that particular point? The noble Lord will notice that in his Amendment No. 19 there is a reference to the drainage authorities in regard to works. We are seeking to bring reference to it in regard to the question of compensation water and other matters of that sort. He brings the drainage question to us in regard to works, and I hope he will consider it in regard to the other aspect.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the internal drainage boards are dealt with satisfactorily in this Bill, but they are not mentioned in this Bill at all. I do not see how that can be a satisfactory way of dealing with them—by ignoring them completely. The noble Lord has been very conciliatory to the Benches behind him. It is a very different matter when an Amendment comes from this side of the House, and I would ask him to look at this point again. If it is desirable generally that the river board should be consulted, even at a time of crisis, then I think other boards similarly interested ought also to be consulted or, at least, notified. They may have interests about which they want to make representations, but there is no requirement even to notify them; therefore I would ask the noble Lord to

  713
  look at this matter again. My noble friend Lord Wise will look at it again, but I think the noble Lord equally should look at it again, with the same results as those which have flowed from his looking at Amendments from his noble friends behind him. He has been most conciliatory to one half of the Amendments, and I hope he will be equally conciliatory with the others.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in order not to break the rules of order more than is necessary, I should like to defer my remarks on those observations until Amendment No. 19 is reached. I shall have more observations to make then, and they will be slightly more in order then than my present observations are now.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.30 p.m.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, in subsection (3), after "include power" to insert: "by an order under this Act". The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment we get into a rather difficult and technical matter in connection with the extentions and variations of previous orders. I appreciate, from what I have been able to gather from a careful study of the Bill, that the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Mancroft is going to move on the First Schedule, at line 17, may be designed to meet the point I have in mind now; but as this clause stands it is not clear whether extensions and variations of previous orders will require to be made by means of orders under Clause 1 of the Bill. I hope that it will prove that this drill has to be gone through all over again, because if it were not so the river boards would receive no notice of applications for extension and consequently would have no opportunity of lodging objection.
  There are likely to be many cases where river boards will acquiesce, especially after consultation, in the loss or reduction of compensation water for a strictly limited period; but if that period were to be extended I think that river boards
  714
  might legitimately wish to oppose extension. As I am advised, the noble Lord's Amendment to the First Schedule only suggests by implication that extensions of period must be authorised by order, and your Lordships may think that, to avoid any possibility of ambiguity in this matter, it would be desirable if the words I am now moving were inserted in the Bill at this point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 27, after ("power") insert ("by an order under this Act").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the Amendment wishes to make it clear that an extension of an order under Clauses 1 or 2 must be effected by an order made under the Bill. I am informed that this Amendment is technically unnecessary because subsection (3) of Clause 4 does not contain in itself any power to extend or vary an order, but simply includes that power in the order-making powers which reside in Clauses 1 and 2. I am advised, therefore, that extensions and variations in previous orders can be effected only by further orders made under these clauses.
  The noble Earl has referred to Amendment No. 25 on the Marshalled List, and perhaps I may turn to that for a moment, because it reflects in some way upon the present Amendment. The Amendment to the Schedule deals with a point which was not raised actually on Committee stage but which has been brought to my notice by some of the interested organisations. Clause 4 (3), which we are discussing on the noble Earl's Amendment, provides that the power to make orders shall include power to extend an order for a period of up to six months. No procedure, however, is laid down for the extension of an order, and the effect is that it would be necessary to go through the whole procedure of the First Schedule, including having a hearing or inquiry. There would thus be no difference between extending an order and making a fresh order. The Amendment provides that in dealing with an application for extension of an order, my right honourable friend can disregard an objection if it is one that has in substance already been made at the time of the application for the original order.

  715
  This is a technical subject and largely a matter of draftsmanship, upon which I cannot pretend to be an expert, but I have taken the advice available to me and I am assured that the noble Earl's fears are ill-founded and that the Bill as presently drafted makes his Amendment unnecessary. If the noble Earl would like to consider this point again, I should be happy to put the service of the draftsmen at his disposal, if he has been unconvinced by what I have put before him. Some three-quarters of an hour ago I was certain that I understood this myself, but I should not like to guarantee that the same understanding still prevails.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it is a little difficult for me. I am not even a lawyer and I have not behind me the resources of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft; and if he feels that he is slowly sinking in this morass, then I am in it up to my neck. I think I must accept the advice which he has given to your Lordships, that my Amendment is unnecessary. This is the simple point about which a layman wants to be sure: if there is no difference between making an emergency order and extending that order, and the whole routine has to be gone through a second time, then we are happy. We feel that we do not want an emergency order granted and then continued by extension for another three months and another three months, without its coming back to go through this procedure. It is a matter of draftsmanship, and after what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment Number 8. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 32, at end insert—
  "(4) Any reference in this Act to any enactment is a reference to that enactment as amended by or under any Act."—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule:

  PROCEDURE FOR MAKING ORDERS
  1.—(1) The applicants for an order under section one or section two of this Act shall cause notice in writing of the application to be served on the persons specified in the following Table—

  Orders concerning the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water.

  (a) Every local authority in whose area the source, or the site at which compensation water is to be discharged is situated.

  (b) Any river board or navigation authority exercising functions over any watercourse affected by the order and, if any such watercourse is in the Thames Catchment area or the Lee Catchment area, the Conservators of the River Thames or the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, as the case may be.

  (2) The applicants shall also cause a notice of the application to be published in one or more local newspapers circulating within the limits of supply of the applicants and of any other statutory water undertakers on whom notice is to be served in accordance with the foregoing Table, and where the application is for an order under section one of this Act the applicants shall in addition cause a notice of the application to be published in the London Gazette.
  A notice under this paragraph—

  (a)shall state the general effect of the application, and

  (b)shall specify a place within the limits of supply of the applicants where a copy of any relevant map or plan may he inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable hours within a period of seven days from the date of first publication of the notice, and

  (c)shall, state that objections to the application may be made to the Minister within seven days from the date on which it is served or, in the case of a public notice, from the date of its first publication, and

  3.—(1) If any objection is duly made with respect to the application and is not withdrawn, then, subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the Minister shall before making the order either cause a public local inquiry to be held or afford to any person by whom any objections have been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and if any person by whom an objection has been made avails himself of the opportunity of being heard, the Minister shall afford to the applicant for the

  717
  order, and to any other persons to whom it appears to the Minister expedient to afford it, an opportunity of being heard on the same occasion.
  (2) Notwithstanding anything in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, the Minister may require any person who has made an objection to state in writing the grounds thereof, and may disregard the objection for the purposes of this paragraph if the Minister is satisfied that the objection relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the arbitrator or other person by whom compensation is to be assessed.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, in paragraph 1 (1) (b) in the item relating to "Orders concerning the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water", to leave out "river board or". The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission. I should like to take this important Amendment together with Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. These Amendments have the sole purpose of ensuring that river boards will have the right of receiving notices in all cases. They are in exactly the same form as similar Amendments I moved in Committee and perhaps I ought to apologise for bringing them forward again in the same form, I am afraid I must have deployed my arguments extrmely badly in Committee, because at that time the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, brushed them aside on the argument of speed. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 43). col. 81]:
  "I hope that one day I may convince him"—
  that is, myself—
  "that speed, which we believe to be the essence of the contract, remains all-important."
  I beg to tell the noble Lord that I did not need convincing then, and I do not need convincing now, that in an emergency obviously speed must be the essence of the contract.
  But the noble Lord went further and said that the more consultations he had and the more notices he gave out, the more matters would be delayed and the whole procedure jeopardised. To go back to the question of speed, I would suggest that the noble Lord must not go too far on that point, because if taken to its logical conclusion, it is a good reason for not giving notice to anybody in any circumstances. When we come to look at it, the clause as drafted says that
  718
  the river boards are entitled to receive notice of an application which is considered to affect the watercourse over which they have jurisdiction. But surely that begs the question. The simple point at issue here is this: are watercourses to be considered as affected only if the emergency abstraction is directly made from them or if the statutory flow is directly reduced in them? Are we to assume that watercourses cannot be indirectly affected?
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his reply in Committee, rather brushed this point aside, too. He said that this indirect affecting of the surface watercourses by underground abstraction was only a theoretical possibility and he did not think it was likely to arise. I do not want to misquote the noble Lord, so perhaps I should remind your Lordships of what he actually said. [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 43), col. 80]:
  "The reason for the Amendment, as I understand it, is that the river boards think that abstractions of underground water near rivers, for example from boreholes or mines, gravel pits and quarries, may affect the flow in the river."
  That is just what the river boards do think. The noble Lord went on to say:
  "This is, I suggest, a theoretical possibility, but experience in dealing with licences under the Water Act for abstractions from boreholes does not suggest that it is very likely to arise in practice."
  Then the noble Lord went on to say this—and, in my opinion, it destroys his argument:
  "In any case, before authorising any abstractions affecting underground water-bearing strata my right honourable friend the Minister would consult the Geological Survey…"
  With respect, the noble Lord cannot have it both ways: either this danger of the indirect affecting of the water in the streams is not to be considered seriously, and therefore no consideration is required, or else it is. If the Minister is prepared to incur delay by consulting the Geological Survey, I cannot see why he cannot consult the persons who are charged with the preservation of these watercourses. I in no way want to denigrate the knowledge or services of the Geological Survey, but I do not think it is right that the river boards, whose duty it is to look after the rivers, should not be consulted, and that only the Geological Survey should. The noble Lord has received certain compliments from

  719
  further along this Bench, and I do not think that this is worthy of him. He cannot say that the opinion of the eminent engineers and consultants who advise the river boards is not worth listening to, and that the only people he will consult are the Geological Survey.
  A further interesting point came to light when I was looking into this matter. If the noble Lord thinks that when he consults with the Geological Survey they are going to advise him that this is a matter of triviality which does not really apply and is not likely to occur, I think he is backing the wrong horse. I find that Dr. Stevenson Buchan, who is the chief geologist of the Geological Survey, in reading a Paper to the River Boards' Association only last year used these words:
  "The movement of river water through an aquifer—"
  I am afraid this is getting rather technical and I should explain that an "aquifer" means a water-bearing strata, as I understand it—
  "to a pumped well may be taking place more frequently than is generally suspected."
  So much for the Geological Survey. That is what they will say.
  There is another point which comes into this question and it is, in our opinion, important, Under the Bill as at present drafted, an undertaker proposing to make an application for these emergency powers will have to consider every case on its merits, and whether, before making an application, he should consult a river board. As a result the water undertakers will have to consult their engineers, and some of the smaller undertakers have not resident engineers on their staff but have to go to consultant engineers and take their advice. But if the notice had to be given in every case, surely the whole thing would be much simpler, because the administrative staff of the water undertaker would know that notice had to be served on the appropriate river board.
  I should like to repeat what I have said before: that I am personally connected with the water industry and I am not trying by these Amendments to hinder or jeopardise water undertakings in any way in the due discharge of their duties. But my friends and I, having gone into this matter carefully, feel that here we are
  720
  helping the water undertakers by simplifying the procedure. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord this time that there is no case for denying to the river board in whose area the abstraction or reduction is to take place the right to receive the notice. I have one further point, for good measure. I think it is worth pointing out that to deny such notice would be quite inconsistent with the procedure under the 1945 Water Act, which can almost be called enshrined legislation. The First Schedule of that Act lays down that
  "notice of all applications for orders concerned with the construction of works or the abstraction of water must be served on every river board whose area is comprised wholly or partly in the area affected by the order."
  I suggest that this is sound doctrine, and should be adhered to in this Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 22, leave out ("river board or")—(Earl Waldegrave.)
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have been asked to support this Amendment on behalf of the water authorities of Scotland. I do not need to say more than I said on the first Amendment of my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, which seems to apply here with even more force than it did on that Amendment.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, with the support of his colleague, my noble friend Lord Saltoun, has argued, ably, as they both argued on the Committee stage, that the river boards should be given the chance to decide for themselves whether their interests are affected. I have thought this matter over very carefully since my noble friend put his arguments in some detail before the House on Committee stage. The Amendment will undoubtedly increase the number of notices to be given by the applicants, but I think it may well be no more trouble to them to send the notice automatically to the river board than to decide whether their application affects a water course over which the river board exercise jurisdiction. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has accused me of brushing his words aside. Perhaps I may sweep them back. At the time at which I saw fit to advise your Lordships to reject my noble friend's Amendment, I thought the matter was evenly balanced: I thought it was roughly six

  721
  of one and half a dozen of the other. But on the whole I inclined to the view that the noble Earl was wrong. I have thought the matter over very carefully, and I will not weary your Lordships any more with it. I have now come to the conclusion that the matter is not six of one and half a dozen of the other, but seven of one and five of the other, and I think my noble friend has the seven. In that case, without further ado I am prepared to eat such words as displease the noble Earl and tell him that I am convinced. I will accept his Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.52 p.m.
  LORD WISE LORD WISE moved in paragraph 1 (1) (b) in the item relating to "Orders concerning the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water", after "authority" to insert "and any internal drainage board". The noble Lord said: My Lords, irrespective of the fact that this Amendment has been referred to previously, I think I should move it. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has just given way on an Amendment which deals with much the same sort of point, I hope he will be able to bring the internal drainage boards into this particular paragraph of the Schedule. We seek that a copy of the application shall be sent to the internal drainage boards where they are affected. I am encouraged by the fact that the noble Lord has a subsequent Amendment, No. 19, in which he includes the drainage authorities among those authorities who should receive notices. I hope that in this particular instance, which refers to the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water, the internal drainage boards will be entitled to receive notices of what may happen. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 23, after ("authority") insert ("and any internal drainage board").—(Lord Wise.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is Amendment No. 16, but let me, if I may, jump to Amendment No. 19, because it reflects back to the noble Lord's Amendment. Amendment No. 19 is in fulfilment of an undertaking which I gave my noble friend Lord Waldegrave on the Committee stage. That Amendment provides for notices to river boards and other drainage authorities of orders
  722
  authorising the execution of works which will affect water courses under their control. "Very well," says the noble Lord, Lord Wise, "but what about our internal drainage boards?" These were the boards to which reference was made two or three Amendments back. Perhaps I ought to remind your Lordships that internal drainage boards are land drainage authorities and are not responsible—here is the important distinction—as river boards are, for fisheries and the prevention of pollution. They are therefore likely to be much less concerned with proposals to take water from a source or to reduce compensation water, and such interest as they may have could be taken into account by the river board. That was the point which I originally made to the noble Lord, Lord Wise.
  I do not think it is inconsistent to provide, as we are doing in Amendment No. 19, that such internal drainage boards—that is, the drainage authorities—should receive notice of works affecting watercourses over which they exercise land drainage functions, as it might be necessary to lay pipes across very minor watercourses in which the river board would have no interest. There is, as I say, quite a sharp distinction between the two, and I think that in the Bill the interests of the internal drainage boards are amply cared for—and, indeed, it was our intention that they should be so cared for. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is not in his place at the moment, but I do not want it to be thought that I am riding roughshod over the noble Lord's Amendment, which is, I am sure, put down with a desire to improve the Bill. If he will be good enough to consult with his friends and let me know whether he is still dissatisfied, I will do my best to meet him. I do not want to give a final and categorical "No" to his request, but I think we have met it. Perhaps he could talk the matter over with his friends, and at some later stage in the Bill if he is not wholly satisfied we will see whether we can meet him in some way.
  LORD WISE: My Lords, that meets my point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. To save time, may I say that we appreciate the point of Amendment No. 19.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 25, leave out from ("order") to the end of line 31—(Earl Waldegrave.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 31, at end insert—
  ("(c) Every river board in whose area the source or the site at which compensation water is to be discharged is situated and if such source or site is in the Thames Catchment area or the Lee Catchment area, the Conservators of the River Thames or the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, as the case may be.").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have just explained this point, so I will not weary your Lordships by repetition. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 33, at end insert—
  ("(b) Any river board or drainage authority (other than a river board) within the meaning of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, being a board or authority in whose area there is any watercourse in, under or over which the works, or any part of the works, are situated.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should like to state that I am extremely grateful that the noble Lord has put down this Amendment, which completely meets the point that was raised on Committee stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.57 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 1, to delete all words from "circulating" down to, and including. "Table", and to insert: "within all the localities affected by the order". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment that I seek to make concerns the provisions to secure that applications for an order shall receive adequate publicity. I think the intention of the words as they are at present in the Schedule is admirable, but I am not sure that they quite meet the case. It may be that the Amendment I propose will not do so either, but I think it is a little better than the words as they at present stand. The provision here is
  724
  for publication in one or more local newspapers circulating—and then come the words I seek to alter:
  "within the limits of supply of the applicants and of any other statutory water undertakers on whom notice is to be served in accordance with the foregoing Table."
  The area there defined may not be as wide as the area that is in fact affected by the order. If I may give an example, the area from which the water is taken, where important amenity considerations may arise, may not be within the area of supply. The purpose of my Amendment is to secure some publication throughout the areas which are, in fact, affected by the order. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 41, leave out from ("circulating") to ("and") in line 2 on page 7, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Conesford.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, paragraph 1 (2) of the First Schedule as drafted provides that the applicants for an order must publish a notice in one or more local newspapers circulating within their limits of supply and the limits of supply of any other statutory water undertakers on whom the Minister has directed notice to be served. My noble and learned friend's Amendment provides, if I have understood it correctly, that notice should be published in local newspapers circulating in all the localities affected by the order. I quite agree with my noble friend that the Bill as we have drafted it is too narrow. On the other hand, I suspect that the noble Lord's Amendment is not sufficiently precise. I should like to look into this point. I have not had much time to examine it in detail, but I think his Amendment leaves the applicant to decide which localities are affected by the order. I do not think that will do. I give an undertaking that I will look at the wording again, and will consult with the experts. I will then put down an Amendment, or draw up an Amendment for him to put down in his name, to meet this point at a later stage. If the shock of my having accepted the Amendment in principle is not too much for my noble friend, I hope that he will withdraw it.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I readily agree with the proposal of my noble friend, especially as I entirely agree with his criticism of my own words. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved, in paragraph 1 (3) (b) to substitute "fourteen" for "seven" [days]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall take Amendments 21 and 22 together. Seven days seems to be a very short period in which to see and study the notice. I think fourteen days would be a better period, unless there is some very great objection. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 10, leave out ("seven") and insert ("fourteen").—(Lord Conesford.)
  LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I should like to support the view that seven days is too short a period, largely for this reason: that the consequences of an undue withdrawal of water may be very serious and persist for a very long time. No doubt it is very unfortunate that any community should be short of water, even for a short time, but there will always be a tendency on the part of any Ministry or Minister of Housing and Local Government to attach very great weight to the immediate inconveniences that are being suffered. Yet, as many of your Lordships know, the effects upon a stream of an undue depletion of its flow of water in the kind of conditions under which these orders will be made can be disastrous and, if not irretrievable, very long-term in their effects. Many of your Lordships know of the trouble you can get in a trout stream; the first warning you get is dead fish floating down the river. There can be serious effects on the animal life.
  I think it would be of advantage in the administration of the Act if there were time for objections to be properly considered. One does not want delay. On the other hand, one does not want bodies like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and local bodies generally rushing in with objections which have not been properly considered but which they feel bound to make forthwith because there is not time to go into the matter properly. If fourteen days is thought too long, perhaps an extra three days, making it ten days, would be more reasonable than the very short period of one week which appears in the Bill as it stands.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I also should like to support this proposal. Seven days is an absurdly short period.
  726
  One appreciates that this is an emergency procedure and that notice has to be kept short, but several things are involved. First of all, the proposal has to reach the people concerned. That takes a day or two, because it is not a question of individuals. People have to get together—very often bodies of people are concerned, and they have to be communicated with. Then they have to consider the proposal, and quite possibly get plans and maps together, so that they can study them. After that they have to deliberate, to decide whether there should be an objection; and, if so, they have to formulate the objection. If every single step is taken as quickly as possible, it really is not feasible to do it in seven days. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will be able to agree that in these circumstances fourteen days is, as I think, the minimum required.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, nobody knows better than I do that seven days is very short notice, but there is the point that this is an emergency. There is also this point: that publication is to be in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area. In nine cases out of ten, these local newspapers are published only once a week. That means, in practice, that the period would probably be a good deal more than seven days, because the river boards will get their notices straight away and it will be pretty well known in the area what is going on. It seems to me that probably the prescribed period of seven days will, in fact, be extended.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, from the point of view of the water undertakings, it will make it extremely difficult if any longer period than seven days is given. After all, this is only the time for giving notice of objections. Afterwards, the objection, if there is an objection, has to be considered. We must be careful that we do not get involved in the drought next-but-one, and not the drought we are dealing with.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my noble and learned friend wants to extend to fourteen days the period within which objections can be made to an application for an order under the Bill. The noble Lord's subsequent Amendment provides for extending the period within which the relevant map or plan is to be available for inspection. Your Lordships

  727
  will have realised that this is not an easy matter on which to make up our minds. There is a great deal to be said on both sides. We have to try to strike a balance. I appreciate the need to give as much time as possible for objections from private individuals and other interests which may be affected by an application for an order. On the other hand, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chorley, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, have pointed out, the purpose of this Bill is to provide a speedy procedure for maintaining the public water supply in times of emergency.
  The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, asks for fourteen days' notice. On the other hand, one of the local authority associations has suggested to us that in certain circumstances it might be possible to dispense with notice altogether. On the whole, I think the seven days which we have now in the Bill and which, after all, follows the precedent of the Act of 1934, strikes about the right balance. I agree that a case can be made for fourteen days, but on the whole I think that the balance is in favour of seven. The effect of extending the period of notice is likely to be that water undertakers will apply, as a precaution, for orders which they will not in the end need to put into effect. This would mean unnecessary trouble and expense for everybody, including the people whose interests the Amendment seeks to protect. I think it is preferable that water undertakers should not apply for powers until they really need them and that they should then be able to rely on a really speedy procedure. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the balance probably tips a little in favour of the seven days that we have in the Bill.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I agree that this is a difficult question, and I think that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England very carefully considered it. I think there is a lot to be said for the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that, if you make the period too short, objections may be raised which would not otherwise be raised. For these reasons, though I do not wish to press the Amendment now, I hope that my noble friend will give it a little further consideration and possibly adopt the compromise of something between the seven and the fourteen days,
  728
  because seven is considered by people who have given the matter most careful consideration to be too little. Nevertheless, on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph 1 (4) (a), to leave out the first "Any" and to insert "Every". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think this Amendment has become otiose by the acceptance by my noble friend Lord Mancroft of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Waldegrave. But, as Lord Mancroft said on my first Amendment, there may be some wording requisite to apply the Amendment to Scotland. Will he kindly look into the point between now and the next stage and give effect to whatever is necessary?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, there is, and I will.
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to move to insert the words printed in the Marshalled List. I think this Amendment is reasonable in itself and also in accordance with the recommendation of the Franks Committee. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 11, at end insert ("The Minister shall supply to any such objector a statement of the case put forward by the applicant").—(Lord Conesford.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this matter is not quite so simple as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Conesford, has, by his brevity, given your Lordships to understand. I suspect that he is well aware of that fact. Of course, what he is asking us to do is to fall in with the recommendation of the Franks Committee that local planning authorities and local authorities exercising compulsory purchase powers should be required to make available, before a public inquiry, a statement in writing giving full particulars of their case. As your Lordships know, the Government have accepted this recommendation in principle, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has issued a circular—the now well-known Circular No. 9/58, about which a letter of considerable importance appeared in The Times newspaper this morning—setting out the arrangements which will in

  729
  future apply in the case of compulsory purchase orders, clearance orders under Part III of the Housing Act, 1957, and cases arising under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
  I can assure my noble and learned friend that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will make administrative arrangements which are generally in accordance with this circular. The explanatory circular on the Act which will be sent to water undertakers will draw attention to the desirability of providing objectors, where possible, with a statement of the applicant's case, but I suggest that it would not really be reasonable, in this particular and rather exceptional case, to impose a hard-and-fast requirement in the Bill itself. The purpose of the Bill, alter all, as we discussed on an Amendment a few minutes ago, is to enable emergency action to be taken. It is bound to take time to prepare a statement and to send copies to all the objectors, and I can envisage that there may be circumstances in which even a very short additional delay will be unacceptable. The Bill ought therefore to leave my right honourable friend the Minister free to vary the requirements according to the circumstances.
  Paragraph 4 of Circular No. 9/58 refers to the Government's intention to give effect in due course, by rules of procedure, to the requirement that a statement of case should be made available in the cases to which the circular applies. The Franks Committee did not direct their attention to the particular question of emergency procedure, and this Bill is concerned with emergency procedure. It does not follow, I would suggest, that requirements which are appropriate to compulsory purchase and to planning cases will be appropriate to applications under this Bill. Nevertheless, the points raised by my noble and learned friend's Amendment can, I think, best be considered as part of the Government's general consideration of rules of procedure for local inquiries. I would ask my noble and learned friend therefore to reconsider this matter. I agree with him, of course, on many of the points he has made and will, no doubt, make in reply, on the necessity for meeting the points raised by the Franks Committee. But in this particular case I think we are faced with circumstances outside those
  730
  which the Franks Committee had in mind, and I think that if we were to carry the Committee's recommendations too literally we should find ourselves in serious trouble. But certainly we intend, as I hope I have now made clear, to carry out the spirit of the Franks Committee's Report, if to carry out the letter will, as I am afraid it will in this case, defeat its own end. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his Amendment.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said, I do not press the Amendment and I ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I have already explained this Amendment, and I will not weary your Lordships with repetition. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 17, at end insert—
  "or
  (b)in a case where the order is one confined to the extension of a period specified in a previous order, that the objection is one that has in substance been made with respect to the application for that previous order."—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.18 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this Amendment provides for the communication to the objector of the text of the report of the person presiding at the inquiry or otherwise appointed by the Minister, and for the publication or the making known of the Minister's decision and reasons to any person interested. This is, I think, in accordance with the recommendation of the Franks Committee to which allusion has already been made. On this occasion I do not think my noble friend will say that it involves a delay. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 21, insert new sub-paragraph
  ("(4) The text of the report of the person presiding at the enquiry or otherwise appointed by the Minister shall be communicated to the objector and to the applicant and the Minister's decision and findings and the reason for his decision shall be published or made available to any person interested.")—(Lord Conesford.)
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this, again, is a very important matter. My

  731
  noble and learned friend's Amendment seeks to give statutory effect, as he has told us, to another recommendation of the Franks Committee. What he wants to do is to make provision for the text of the inspector's report of an inquiry to be communicated to the objector and to the applicant, and for the Minister's decision and findings and the reason for his decision to be published or made available to any person interested. May I come back for a moment to the famous Circular No. 9/58? The Minister's circular on the application of the Committee's recommendations to compulsory purchase, housing and planning cases stated that:
  "the letter informing the parties of the Minister's decision will in future, in addition to describing the site and summarising the main points put at, the inquiry, state the inspector's findings and his recommendations (if any) and then give the Minister's decision with reasons. If the Minister does not accept the inspector's recommendation the letter will say why. The letter will also state that any recipient "—
  that is, the local authority or any objector or applicant—
  "may obtain a copy of the inspector's report if a request for it is made within one month of the date of the letter."
  My noble and learned friend's Amendment goes a little beyond the circular, in that it requires two things: it requires, first, that the text of the inspector's report must always be communicated to the parties; and secondly, that the Minister's decision must be published or made available to any person interested. As I believe the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government have declared their intention of giving effect, as far as possible, to the recommendations of the Franks Committee, and they have given evidence of that intention in this circular and in the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill which is now before Parliament. It is desirable to keep the procedure under the Water Bill in line with the general practice of the particular Department concerned here. In view of the enormous bulk of planning inquiries, the circular does not contemplate that a report will be published unless one of the parties asks for it; and the Minister would ordinarily want to follow the same procedure under the Water Bill.
  732
  I cannot see that there is any point in having a statutory obligation to furnish copies of a report which no one has asked to see, but I can give my noble and learned friend an undertaking as to the second part of his Amendment, that the decision letters of my right honourable friend the Minister on applications under the Bill will conform, in general, with the requirements of Circular 9/58: that is to say, they will state the findings of the inspector and his recommendations, if any, and will give reasons for the Minister's decision. But in the view of my right honourable friend this is best left to administrative arrangement. He feels that he should not be tied down by an unalterable provision in the Statute itself. I should have thought that if there were to be a statutory provision for these matters it should be done by rules which can be varied in the light of experience.
  Noble Lords may ask: "Why not take a power in the Bill to make rules of procedure?" I believe the answer would be that this Bill deals only with a very small part of the wide range of activities covered by the Department of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I do not think it would be a happy arrangement to take power to make rules over one small part of the field, particularly in view of the special nature of orders under this rather exceptional Bill. Your Lordships will remember that the Bill is concerned with orders which are urgent and temporary. Nobody can be permanently deprived by the Bill of his land or rights to water, and that is the essential difference between this Bill and other cases considered by the Franks Committee. The procedure under the Bill will be looked at as part of the general review of inquiry procedure. I hope that with that assurance my noble and learned friend will agree to withdraw this Amendment also.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his full reply and particularly for the undertaking which it contained. In those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  4.25 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as your Lordships will see from the Explanatory Memorandum, the object of this Bill is to raise the weekly National Health Service contribution payable by an adult male by 6d. to a total of 1s. 10½d., with smaller increases for other classes of insured persons, and to raise the employer's contribution by 2d. to 5½d. When asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading I am doing so on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health and also my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the Bill will affect England and Wales and Scotland equally.
  if your Lordships will allow me, I will explain some of the reasons why Her Majesty's Government feel it necessary to put forward these proposals, and will also give the present arrangements for the payment of contributions to the National Health Service. I will start by drawing your Lordships' attention to the continued increases in the cost of the National Health Service and I would remind the House of what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde told your Lordships on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill, 1957, when he stressed how the cost of the Service had been steadily increasing every year since it was first introduced. Perhaps I might illustrate this in a little more detail.
  In the year 1949–50 (that is, the first fall accounting year of the Service) the total cost met from all sources was £452 million. The estimated cost for the year 1957–58 (that is, the year just ended) has now risen to £709 million; and for the current year, 1958–59, the estimated cost is £740 million. I agree with noble Lords opposite and others who may say that much of this increase is due to the period of inflation through which we have been passing, resulting in increased rates of pay awarded to National Health Service staff, and the higher prices of foods, drugs and other essentials within the Service. But the fact remains that the cost of the Service has increased in real terms by
  734
  about £80 million a year, or nearly 20 per cent. of the total, between the first full year of the Service (that is, 1949–50) and the current year (1958–59). This real increase of £80 million is, in fact, a direct result of the steady expansion of the Service which has taken place ever since it was instituted.
  I believe the House as a whole would agree with me that a National Health Service must embrace new medicines, new treatments, new techniques, better hospitals et cetera, for I believe I speak for one and all when I say that if we were to restrict the Health Service to a deadline, then, as new treatments and techniques were brought in, its effectiveness could be rapidly reduced. It is my opinion, and I believe t hat of most people, that we can look upon this Service as one that will be likely to expand as science develops. If I may give your Lordships some examples of the expansion of the Service during the years from 1949–50 up to the present date, I should like to draw attention to the substantial sums of money that have been available to hospitals for building work, for instance. In England and Wales the amount estimated to be spent on capital account in the current year, 1958–59, will be about £20 million and in the following year £22 million. It is of interest to note that this compares with about £9 million in the year 1950–51. The same trend of expenditure has occurred in Scotland. In fact, at this very moment work is going ahead with several large schemes throughout the whole of the British Isles.
  The daily number of beds occupied in hospitals in Great Britain as a whole on an average during a year has increased from 453,838 in 1950 to 478,484 in 1956. During the same period the number of new out-patients has risen from just under 7,900,000 to nearly 9,100,000, and the number of attendances at out-patient departments has risen from 31 million to just over 35 million. I believe that those illustrations prove what I have already said. In the family doctor service the number of doctors has increased from just under 20,500 in 1951 to just under 22,500 in 1956. The number of dental treatments provided has increased from just under 9½ million in 1953 to 12 million in 1956–2½ million in three years—and I could give many other sets of figures to

  735
  show the same expanding trend in all other parts of the Service—for instance, hospital staffs, the number of sight tests, visits paid by home nurses, et cetera. All these and many other parts of the Service have increased substantially, and this trend of expansion seems likely to continue.
  The costs of the Service—the figures of which I have just quoted—were, of course, the total costs, the greater part of which, as your Lordships know, is borne by the Exchequer, and it is this continuing increase of the drain on the Exchequer that has greatly concerned Her Majesty's Government. I will give the House some figures which will illustrate this fact. In the year 1949–50, which I have already said was the first full accounting year of the Service, the Exchequer's share of the cost was £345 million out of a total cost of £452 million; whereas in the year 1957–58 (the year which has just come to a close) the Exchequer's share is estimated to have been £545 million, out of a total cost of £709 million. For the current year (that is. 1958–59) the Exchequer's share is estimated, under present arrangements—that is, without the present Bill becoming law—to be £555 million, out of a total estimated cost of £740 million.
  I think your Lordships will agree that successive Governments of both Parties have sought ways and means of limiting the increasing burden of the National Health Service on the Exchequer. In 1950 the Government of noble Lords opposite made it clear that they could not permit any further increase in the overall expenditure on the Health Service in the circumstances that then prevailed. Again, in 1951 they decided that the Health Service Estimates would have to be brought within a total of £400 million, which for the time being would have to be a ceiling, and to achieve that result they themselves introduced certain charges which, if my memory serves me aright, were not all that popular within their own Party at the time.
  In 1957 the present Government came to the conclusion that £550 million, the original estimated cost of the share falling in 1957–58 on the Exchequer—that is, 80 per cent. of the total cost—was more than it was reasonable to expect the Exchequer to bear. They therefore considered it reasonable, in order to reduce
  736
  this burden, that the weekly contribution towards the Health Service which had been included in the National Insurance contribution in 1948 but had remained unchanged despite large increases in earnings, should be enlarged and at the same time established as a separate contribution.
  The original Health contribution for a man was 10d. per week, including 1½d. paid by the employer. The increased contribution fixed by the 1957 Act was double that amount—namely, 1s. 8d., including 3½d. paid by the employer. The double contributions brought in by this Act were at the time expected to produce about £80 million in a full financial year, against the £40 million produced by the then existing contribution. The 1957 Act has, however, failed to achieve the intended result. As I have already tried to explain to your Lordships, the total cost originally expected to fall on the Exchequer in that year, 1957–58, was £550 million; and it was therefore decided to double the contribution, with the expectation that the yield from the contributions in the past year would reduce the Exchequer's share from £550 million to about £530 million. Expenditure in 1957–58, despite the introduction of economies wherever practicable, has considerably exceeded the original forecast, and it is now estimated that about £545 million will have fallen to the Exchequer during that year. For this year, as I have already said, about £555 million would under present arrangements, including payment of National Health Service contributions at existing rates, have to be borne by the Exchequer. This is even higher than the figure of £550 million which was considered more than excessive for the Exchequer last year.
  The Government's proposals, therefore, as one of the measures aimed at keeping this year's Estimates as a whole not substantially higher than the last year's expenditure, are to make from early in July a further small increase in the Health contribution, which is estimated to yield about £24 million in the current year, 1958–59, and so reduce the estimated cost of the Health Service to the Exchequer in this year from £555 million to £531 million. This figure, as your Lordships will see, is more in line with the figure the Government had in mind for the Exchequer's share of the

  737
  cost when the original Bill was introduced last year. In real terms it represents in fact an increase of some £35 million over Exchequer expenditure on the Health Service in 1949–50.
  Some noble Lords may say that there are alternatives to this decision to raise the contributions. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government there are only two. The first would be to cut down the services (and, as I have already said, if you cut development of the Health Service in any way it could just decay), but this would be completely contrary to the principles that now, on anybody's view, underlie the National Health Service, and I think would have been unpopular throughout the country, especially as it would have fallen hardest on those who are sick. The second alternative would have been to increase existing charges, such as prescription charges or charges for dentures and spectacles, or to impose new charges. This would have imposed a new and additional burden upon the sick, and, again I am sure your Lordships would agree, would have been most unwelcome. Therefore Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that the present proposals are by far the most practical.
  I will give your Lordships some further reasons why Her Majesty's Government consider it necessary to raise the contribution. First, the increased contributions, which are paid only when National Insurance contributions are also payable, will thus be paid by persons when they are fit and active. No contribution will be paid by sick persons or retirement pensioners. This principle is in accordance with the long tradition of insuring when well against the expenses which arise in times of sickness. Her Majesty's Government are in fact only carrying on the principle embodied in the original National Health Insurance Bill introduced by the Government of noble Lords opposite in 1946, which has provided that insured persons should make a contribution towards the cost of the National Health Service. Secondly, I would remind the House that when the original National Health Service Bill was passed in 1946, it was then thought that contributions from insured people would meet about 20 per cent. of the total cost of the Service, but in fact this expectation, as I hope I have adequately
  738
  explained to the House, proved wrong, and as the total cost increased the proportion borne by contributions has, of course, become less and less.
  With the increase in contribution which came about last year, the total amount of the cost falling on the contributors, plus the yield from various existing charges, became about 17 per cent.—a figure still less than the 20 per cent. contemplated in the original Bill of 1946. If the contribution is raised further, as this Bill now proposes, the expected yield from the increased contributions in the current year, 1958–59, will be in the region of £105 million, and from charges about £38 million—a total of £143 million. This sum represents 19·3 per cent. of the total estimated cost of the Service in the year 1958–59, a figure still within the originally contemplated 20 per cent. Even with the increase in the contribution, the share of the cost to fall on the Exchequer will still be approximately 72 per cent. I cannot think that anybody would consider that this is an unfair or unreasonable sharing of the burden between the contributors and the Exchequer.
  It has been suggested in another place that the proposed increase in the contribution will cause hardship to the lower-paid wage earners. I think your Lordships will agree that it is important to keep matters in perspective and also not to overlook the substantial increases in earnings, on the one hand, and income tax reliefs, on the other, over the past few years.
  May I give the House some examples? For instance, a man earning the national weekly average of £12 11s. 7d.—this is the latest figure available—will by the present proposals have to pay an extra 6d. a week. The percentage of average earnings which this increase represents is 2. The same man will pay, with the 6d. increase, a total National Health Service contribution is 1s. 10½d. The proportion of average earnings which this total Health contribution represents is 75 per cent. Even if one takes the example of a man on a low weekly wage—shall we say, an agricultural worker on the minimum weekly rate of £7 10s. a week—the extra 6d. a week represents 33 per cent. of his earnings, and his total contribution of 1s. 10½d. represents 1½25 per cent. of his earnings. In return,

  739
  however, he and all his family are entitled to all the benefits of the Health Service—hospital care, the services of a family doctor, dentist, and many other things. I would suggest to your Lordships that there are not many fields in which the public can get such excellent value for money. There is an old saying, "You can get nothing for nothing and something little for a 'bob'." A "bob" was worth a great deal more than it is to-day and perhaps we should say to-day, "You can get little for sixpence, and you cannot get as much for your 6d. anywhere as you can from the National Health Service." I do not think that this is a bad way of investing sixpence.
  Before I close, I should like to explain in detail the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1, subsection (1), substitutes from the appointed day new rates of contribution for the rates contained in the First Schedule to the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957. The proposed increases are: an adult male employee, 6d.; an adult female employee, 4d.; a boy or girl employee, 2d.; an employer, in all cases, 2d.; self-employed and non-employed persons, 6d., 4d. and 2d., as for employees. The inclusive new rates are set out in the Schedule to the Bill.
  It is intended that, if the Bill is approved by Parliament, the new contributions shall be effective from the beginning of July next. As with the existing contribution, the increased contribution will be collected together with the National Insurance contribution, so that where they are paid by stamp a single stamp will continue to be used.
  The remainder of Clause 1 deals with various minor and supplementary provisions. As in the original Act, subsection (3) ensures that the provisions of the Bill apply to Crown servants and to members of Her Majesty's Forces; and enables the Government of Northern Ireland to introduce comparable legislation, since without such specific authority the Northern Ireland Parliament is precluded from legislating in respect of Crown servants. Subsection (4) makes provision for any increases in administrative expenses that will be incurred and also enables certain payments to be made to the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man respectively in respect of members of Her Majesty's Forces and
  740
  seamen employed on foreign-going ships who are treated as belonging to these two countries. Clause 2 gives the short title, citation and extent.
  I hope that I have made clear the general objects of the Bill and given sufficient indication of its detailed provisions. The increase proposed is a modest one and the proposal will enable the development of the National Health Service to continue. The additional amount which contributors will be asked to bear surely is small in regard to the tremendous value that the developing Health Service would give them. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  4.48 p.m.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl has clearly explained this short Bill and its objective, but he has not justified, I think, the policy which infuses the Bill and which is the same policy which led to the introduction of a similar Bill in July of last year. We were opposed to that Bill and we are opposed to this Bill. We regard it as a miserable, piffling Bill, born of a baleful purpose and policy of moving away from a free National Health Service towards, I feel I must say, dismantling one of the cornerstones of our welfare society. Initially, the National Health Service was our pride and the envy of many other countries. I have heard it described, I think, properly, as being the Magna Charta of the nation's health.
  This scheme was tarnished last year, and it is proposed so to do again this year, by the blemishes of the introduction of contributions towards its cost. Twice within the last twelve months have the Government nibbled at the principle of a non-contributory National Health Service. Last September, they took the first step towards abandoning the original principle that the Service should be universal, free, and non-contributory. There is nothing in the National Health Service Act, 1946, requiring or permitting contributions or payment from contributors. The intention was that all should be entitled to the benefits of the Service as a right of citizenship without let or hindrance; a right to use the facilities of a service provided and paid for out of the national product by way of taxes,

  741
  as regards State expenditure, and as regards local authority expenditure, by rates. Let me quote in support of that submission from paragraph 718 of the Guillebaud Committee's Report. It says:
  "We have been continually reminded in our evidence that a great many people still believe that they pay for the National Health Service through the national insurance contributions."
  Then (I leave out some immaterial words) the Report goes on:
  "We wish to emphasise strongly that the National Health Service is not an insurance scheme and that its benefits do not depend on the payment of insurance contribution by the users of the Service. It is true that an annual payment, which in 1953–54 amounted to £36 million odd in England and Wales, is made by the National Insurance Fund towards the cost of the National Health Service, but this represents only a small proportion of the gross cost of the Service, over £460 million in England and Wales in 1953–54. Moreover, it should be clearly understood that the services provided under the National Health Service Acts are available to all persons in this country and are not dependent on any insurance qualification."
  That, I submit, is the basis on which the great scheme for a Health Service was launched in this country. This Bill, like its predecessor of last year, is a flagrant departure from that principle. I should like to emphasise the words of the Guillebaud Report: that the Service is available to all persons in the country. And that applies to visitors from abroad, even though there be no reciprocal arrangements with the country of which they are citizens.
  It is true, as the noble Earl who introduced the Bill said, that an annual payment from the National Insurance Fund has been made and could continue to be made until last September. But this was not a contribution; it was an allocation calculated on a quite arbitrary basis of 10d. for men and 8d. for women, of which 1½d. was to be regarded as appropriate or related to the employer. It was not, as I have said, a direct contribution; it was merely an appropriation from the funds in the National Insurance kitty, as it were, to the credit of the National Health Service. In the result it meant that the Exchequer supplement to the National Insurance Fund was increased pro tanto or, alternatively, that the surplus on the Fund was reduced by the amount of the credit, or the deficiency increased. In 1955 the Exchequer supplement to the National Insurance Fund was reduced to about 13 per cent. of the contributions of all
  742
  three parties to that Fund. It was stated then that it was put upon an actuarial basis. For the year 1956–57 this Exchequer supplement was £93 million, which took account—and I stress this fact—of the £40 million, roughly, which was paid out of the National Insurance Fund towards the cost of the Health Service. That was the position until September, 1957.
  Then, for, as we think, no adequate or justifiable reasons, the Government discontinued the payment and put the contribution on the basis of an additional payment by the employee and the employer and doubled the notional amounts of 10d., 8d., and 1½d. Therefore what formerly was an allocation of those relative figures became from September, 1957, a contribution of 1s. 4½d. by men, 1s. 0½d. by women and 3½d. by the employer. By that delicate financial sleight of hand, £80 million was transferred to the shoulders of the contributors in relief of Government liability for supplementary contribution: not £40 million, as was contended by some on the passage of the Bill last September, but the whole £80 million. Thus the National Insurance Fund was relieved of a charge of £40 million, and the contribution to the Health Service was increased by £40 million.
  For 1958, as the noble Earl has said, the payment is estimated at £105 million, as against £41 million in 1956—an increase of over £60 million—and there has been no permanent consequential reduction of the contributions to the National Insurance Fund; indeed, in February of this year these contributions were increased (I admit that so also were the benefits) by 2s. a week for men and 1s. 8d. a week for women, excluding in both cases the contribution of 1s. 4½d. per man and 1s. 0½d. per woman; and the amounts of the employer's contribution were also increased by 1s. 11d. and 1s. 6d. respectively. Thus the Government have transferred a charge of £80 million-plus a year from the Exchequer to the contributors other than themselves. And now, if you please, a further charge in a full year of £32 million is to be exacted, which means that a total of £105 million or £112 million is to be exacted in respect of the cost of a Service which was intended to be free.
  By imposing these contributions the Government are departing again from

  743
  the original conception of a free National Health Service. It is contended, in extenuation of this change of front, that the Government will be paying 72 per cent. of the net cost. What is wrong with that? In truth, why should not the Government—that is to say, the nation as a whole—pay 100 per cent. of the cost of this service? That was what was intended. It is not the Government but the community which pays, and it is the community, every one of us, for whom the service is available. This is the case with expenditure on defence, police, education, sewerage and other social services. There is no poll-tax in respect of them, because upon them depends the life and work of society that can only be collectively provided. But is not society equally dependent upon the good health of the people of the country? Is it the case that, because the Health Service is available for everyone but is individually used as and when need arises, it is less necessary than the other services to which I have referred? Clearly, the answer must be that it is not less necessary. It is an essential service.
  Moreover, the beneficiaries, actual or potential, are not the only ones to benefit from this Service and the expenditure involved in its maintenance. The nation as a whole benefits enormously in the better and improving health of its people, and especially of its children who will be the nation of to-morrow. Can it be questioned that the health of the nation has greatly improved since the Health Service came into being? There is less infantile mortality; there are fewer deaths at childbirth, and the death rate is falling, to mention only a few of the aspects of benefits which have flowed from this great Service. Let us look at the improved health and condition of our children—clear-eyed, clean-limbed, bonny children who are a pride and satisfaction to all of us. In the matter of the health and appearance of our children, I think it can be said that a veritable transformation has taken place in these latter years.
  Moreover, good and better health is, as I have said, a national benefit, as well as a personal one. For sickness, bad health, poor eyesight and other infirmities lead to an immense loss of working days and, therefore, a great loss of production and of national income.
  744
  Between June, 1954, and June, 1955, 277 million days of work were lost through sickness, much of which was preventable. Good and expanding production is bound up with good health; and good health depends, among other things, upon a good and expanding Health Service. The health of the individual is the concern of the nation, and the cost of the Health Service should be properly borne by the nation out of the income of the nation and not as a poll tax, such as these contributions are. A proper proportion of the national product should be devoted to the provision of such a Service.
  What is the proportion? The noble Earl was good enough to give the actual figures and to trace the movement in growth of expenditure from 1949–50 to the present day. But the important consideration, the real basis of the adequacy or the excess of contribution to a Service of this kind, is: What is the percentage of its cost in relation to the national product? In the first completed year, 1949–50, the net cost of the Service was 3·80 per cent. of the national income. In 1956, it was 3·56 per cent.—it had gone down. I believe that if the latest figures were available they would show that the proportion to-day is probably about equal to what it was in 1949–50; and I submit that that is the test. After all, the net cost of the Service, £550 million, is less than one-third of our expenditure on defence. I do not complain about this, though with others I keenly and deeply deplore the necessity for that expenditure. But is defence against the internal enemy of disease and sickness less necessary than defence against external potential enemies? We do not have a poll-tax for defence or, indeed, one could almost say, for any of the other collectively provided national services.
  I reiterate that we on these Benches cannot approve this further departure from a free, universal National Health Service. The noble Earl was good enough to refer to the effect of these increases of contribution upon the lower paid workers; and he seemed to me to dispose of the question a little cavalierly. These cumulative increases in contribution, in deduction from pay, of 2s. 6d. for men and 2s. 1d. for women from September, 1957, including those now

  745
  proposed, will in fact bear hardly on many workers. It is idle to talk of a man's average earnings as being £12 10s. a week. Averages are always dangerous. In any case, there are hundreds of men getting less than £10 a week, and there are as many more getting less than £8 a week. This average figure of £12 10s. is swollen by the earnings in selected favoured industries, such as the motor industry at the present time; the aircraft industry—perhaps not so much now as it was nine months ago; work in the docks; the chemical industry, and quite a number of the luxury industries. The average, as I say, is swollen by the quite exceptional, and in some respects temporary large earnings within those special trades.
  As the noble Earl said, the statutory wage of an agricultural labourer is £7 10s. I am informed that at the present time the average wage of a shop assistant is £9 a week in London, and £8 10s. in the provinces. The agricultural labourer and the shop assistant will have a deduction, if this Bill goes through, of 9s. 11d. a week for insurance of one kind and another. Moreover, there are thousands of women in domestic work earning less than £5 a week; and they will have a deduction of 8s. 1d. a week. Then there are apprentices, many of whom, either at or soon after the commencement of their apprenticeship, are over the age of 18 and pay on the adult basis. Very few of these get other than a proportion of the normal wage, and probably few of them earn £5 a week. Yet they will have to pay 9s. 11d. a week insurance contributions. They are therefore discouraged from entering into apprenticeships, although at this very moment the Ministry of Labour are, I think, officially running a campaign for the recruitment in various industries of more apprentices.
  Then these further increases will discourage the employment of part-time workers. It is not a question only of 2d. a week, although that can be very burdensome, as I will indicate in a moment from some figures I have; but the employers will be increasingly unwilling to pay the extra contribution for part-time employees. It is the case, my Lords, that the employers made representations to the Government early this year about the effect that the increase of contributions operating from February of this year
  746
  would have on the employment of part-time workers. Those representations were made by the British Employers' Federation. As I have said, the matter is not disposed of by referring to the smallness of the additional contributions.
  I have some figures here copied from the Financial Times, which has not yet become a Socialist paper. It gives the following figures of the cost to various large employers of this extra 2d. In the case of the Transport Commission the cost will be £350,000 a year, of which £250,000 will be payable by British Railways and £38,000 by London Transport. The Transport Commission has been told that it must not raise its charges, whether for passengers or for freight. It has been told that it cannot have any further loans to cover its deficits. Where is it to get the money for this additional liability, this additional charge? London Transport has been told that even if the busmen accept the 8s. 6d. award they will not be permitted to increase fares. In the case of the Coal Board, the increase will cost £330,000. For the electricity industry the cost will be £78,000; for the gas industry, £60,000; for London County Council, £30,000; Unilever, Limited, £22,000; Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, £50,000. The last-named two, of course, are in a better position than the earlier instances I read out, because they are free to increase prices; but none of the nationalised industries is free so to do, except by and with the leave of the Government, which it seems is to be withheld.
  Therefore, I think, my Lords, that it will be agreed that one need not wonder that there are claims for increased wages. First we had increases in other charges for the various social services: we had increased charges for school milk and for school meals. There has been recently an increase in the price of bread. There are increases permitted, if indeed not encouraged, in rents. Suggestions are being made as an effort towards economy that the fees for further education should be increased, and now there are these further increases in contributions, those of February of this year and the ones now proposed under this Bill. It is little wonder that the people have no faith in the pretensions and protestations that the Government seek to arrest inflation and reduce the cost of living. Almost everything they do has the contrary result.

  747
  This lack of faith and belief is being demonstrated with every successive by-election. As I said at the outset, in our opinion, this is a bad Bill, reflecting a bad policy and an unworthy purpose, a retreat from the principle of a free National Health Service; and we on this side of the House must offer it our opposition.
  5.20 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I find myself in the position of sympathising profoundly with the speech which has just been made by my noble friend and disagreeing with him as to the facts of the case, because I do not think that we are going to get out of the difficulties in which we are certainly enmeshed at present without a considerable change of mind, of thought and of methods of action. Of course, it is most unfortunate that we are in this position. It is certainly not due to our iniquities; it is due to changes in the world situation. It is not by any means an easy thing to get out of. I believe that we must face the situation as it is and not invent something to make a cockshy of and throw things at. We must see what the facts really are. Anyone who cares to wade through the reports about the present industrial conditions in this country will soon realise that we are in a serious position. But we are not in a desperate position; we are not in a position from which we cannot escape. We are in a position in regard to which we must look the facts in the face and take new decisions with regard to action. It is no use merely saying, "This is unjust, that is unjust, this is very evil" and so on. We must propose definite remedies and methods of escaping from our present situation.
  I do not believe that the situation in this country is one about which anybody can be completely happy. Unless the whole economic situation in the country is amended it may well bring us to great distress. I believe it will be necessary for us to grapple with the situation in a much firmer and far-reaching way than we are doing at present. The whole world is now moving towards a new situation—some may call it an equalitarian state; others may say it is destruction. This country is now moving towards conditions which are of the gravest and serious importance to everyone in Parliament, to everyone concerned
  748
  in any way with either local or national government, and to everyone in the country. We must find a way out of our difficulties. I believe we can. It is no use abusing each other on one side or the other. It is no use saying that we ought to do this or that we ought to do that; we must make a decision to do something most definite. I suggest that we should decide to come together and discuss these matters without rancour and without pretending that we can abolish the difficulties of the capitalist and of the industrialist merely by a wave of the hand or a full speech. We must come to decisions which will have the effect of creating possibilities of action in this country which will, to a large extent, although of course not immediately, restore the wealth, the prosperity and the happy method of living here.
  I think that many things that have been done recently have not been things upon which we should congratulate ourselves. I do not think we have yet faced the full difficulties of the immediate problems. But I do think that we can face them and that we can grapple with them, and I hope and trust that this debate, which has already given rise to some considerable plain speaking, will, before it terminates, give rise to more plain speaking, and that as a result of this meeting of the House we can decide on some definite decisions which will be of help to the country as a whole and not merely demonstrate our weakness, the impossibility of action and so on, which is not true. We are a strong people and we always have been. So far as a large part of the population is concerned we are a wealthy people, and we have the possibility of doing great things. Now is a time of emergency. We must try to deal with the emergency by bringing new concepts of action in national affairs to this national Assembly. Here we must draw up a plan—I hope we shall be able to do so in a very short time—to make better proposals in the immediate future than those we have dreamed about hitherto.
  5.27 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, for his forthright speech which, in essence, really supported my proposals. As I expected, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, opened up with

  749
  some pretty rough gunfire. As I say, I expected it because, after all, from a purely political point of view any measure that proposes to put an extra charge or an increase of taxation or something in that line on the public from the Government of the day or from the Party in Opposition is always good, fine fun for the hustings. I would suggest that really we are discussing something more important—something that needs more thought than is required by just throwing brickbats about the place. But I do not mind, if that is what the noble Lord likes.
  He did not make one feel that his argument was a very strong one because he was hairsplitting when he said that originally in 1946 there was an allocation from the National Health Insurance Fund to the National Health Service. When you come down to brass tacks, according to the recommendations made in his Report by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, the National Health Insurance Fund was conceived specifically to carry a certain figure to be allocated at that time to the National Health Service. To put it in simple language, it would be just the same if I gave the noble Lord 1s. a day and he were to give me a cup of tea and a couple of biscuits, and in his own private ledger he put down the tea as being 7d. and the biscuits as being 5d. Then, if he came along a little later and said to me that he found the 1s. was not sufficient to buy these things and he wanted 1s. 1d., I might say to him, "Well, where is the penny going?" He might reply, "The tea costs more as well as the biscuits"; and he would enter in his ledger that extra 1d. under one item or the other. That is really what is happening in practice.
  The Insurance Fund, if you like to think of it in this way, is going up in total, with a bigger increase in the allowance going to the National Health Service. The Health Service, as I said earlier—and I think everybody agrees with me—is likely to expand. Indeed, if it is to be of any use, it probably must expand, and therefore must cost more; with the result that we must pay more for it.
  750
  The noble Lord said—it seemed a rare thing for a Socialist to say—that it is not the Government's money, that the Government have not got any money, and that it is the nation's money. That is exactly what the present Government think; and it is in order that they may keep down Government expenditure—that is, the taxpayers' expenditure—to the limit, or somewhere near the limit, of last year that they are proposing to put on this very modest extra contribution. In 1946, when the Party of the noble Lord initiated this Service they reckoned that they would get an allocation from the contribution of 20 per cent. of the total cost. With an expanding Service we are still running, even with these changes, at under 20 per cent. In a different way the Party of the noble Lord when in power made similar arrangements. They did not raise the charge but put charges on certain services instead of adding to the contribution. At one time they also put a ceiling on the Health Service which obviously—
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will admit that the charges which the Labour Government put on were temporary and were intended to come to an end in 1954. The present Government have imposed additional charges by way of multiplying the charge for prescriptions; and these charges are not temporary. In that sense what the Labour Government did in a time of crisis is quite different from what the present Government have done at a time when, according to the Prime Minister, "it was never so good."
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that the Labour Government which imposed these charges, in 1951, went out so quickly that they did not have much time to see how they would work or whether they would have to be made permanent. That was left for this Government to see. I think that I have answered all the points raised by noble Lords, and I hope that I have explained the Bill as adequately as your Lordships would wish. I hope that you will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  LIFE PEERAGES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

  SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on February 5 and March 5 last discharged, and Bill referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
  House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before six o'clock.