HL Deb 15 April 1958 vol 208 cc716-32

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—

  1. (a)shall state the general effect of the application, and
  2. (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
  3. (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3.—(1) If any objection is duly made with respect to the application and is not withdrawn, then, subject to the provisions of this paragraph, the Minister shall before making the order either cause a public local inquiry to be held or afford to any person by whom any objections have been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and if any person by whom an objection has been made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 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 WALDEGRAVEmoved, 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 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 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 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 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 WISEmoved 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 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 CONESFORDmoved 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 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 CONESFORDmoved, 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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.

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.