HL Deb 15 April 1958 vol 208 cc695-716

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—

  1. (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
    2. 696
  2. (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—
    1. (i) the taking of water from any source,
    2. (ii) the discharge of compensation water, or
    3. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 "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 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 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 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 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—

  1. (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.
  2. (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. 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 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 WALDEGRAVEmoved, 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 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.

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: