HL Deb 27 February 1958 vol 207 cc1024-46

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

3.12 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This short measure will enable us to get rid of two more Defence Regulations. I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships for that reason, as well as for its own merits. May I first explain briefly to your Lordships some of the background which, in the Government's view, makes permanent powers of this kind necessary? As we know, serious droughts are fortunately rare in this country. We do not suffer the great losses of stocks and crops as do countries like Australia. But when we do have droughts they cause a great deal of inconvenience and even some hardship. The Bill is designed to give permanent powers for maintaining public water supplies in such exceptional conditions.

Your Lordships may wonder why the authorities responsible for public water supplies—that is, the statutory water undertakers—should not make sure that they are always able to keep up supplies, however great the drought. But to provide and maintain sources and storage for this purpose, which might be required once, say, in twenty years or so, would mean tying up large amounts of capital, with a consequent increase in the cost of water in all years. It would also use a good deal of land for reservoirs that could better go on being used for farming.

We are, as your Lordships know, encouraging water undertakers to amalgamate into larger and more efficient units. A dozen or so more undertakers have amalgamated since the last time we discussed this matter in your Lordships' House on a Motion by my noble friend Lord Albemarle, and more demises are on the way. We may expect the undertakings to be able to deal with all normal and some abnormal years, but the premium for insuring all undertakings against the worst possible drought would be too heavy.

The worst droughts in this century occurred in 1921 and in 1933–34. In 1934 the shortages became so serious that Parliament was asked to pass an emergency measure—the Water Supplies (Emergency Shortage Orders) Act, 1934. This empowered Ministers to make orders enabling the water undertakers to get more water. The Act was a temporary one and was in force for just over eighteen months. The Government of the day were criticised for not having permanent powers available so as to avoid the need for rushing emergency legislation through. The Act, however, was not renewed.

During and since the war, Ministers have been able to deal with shortages of water, however caused, by making orders under the Defence Regulations. Defence Regulation 50A has been used to make orders allowing water undertakers to take water from emergency sources. Entry on land and the carrying out of works has required further authority under Defence Regulation 50. For example, an order to take supplies from a river by means of a temporary intake would have to be made under both Regulations.

Defence Regulation 56 has been used to relax restrictions and obligations resting on water undertakers. For example, when an impounding reservoir is built, a stream is dammed and water collected behind the dam. Under their normal powers, the water undertakers are then required to send down a certain amount of water from the reservoir to maintain the flow in the stream. This is what is called compensation water ". It will be considerably less than the biggest flow in flood times but a good deal more than the minimum flow in very dry weather.

The water undertakers' normal powers may also restrict the amount of water they may pump from a river and they prescribe the flow that must be left in it. Requirements of this kind have been relaxed under Defence Regulation 56 and so also, in England and Wales, have limits on water rates and charges. Variations in water rates and charges are now dealt with under the Water Act, 1945. Seven orders for making extra water available, which it has not yet been possible to get rid of by making more permanent arrangements, and 88 orders authorising increased charges, are still in existence.

In more recent years the Defence Regulations have been used only to deal with drought. The dry weather of 1949, 1955, 1956 and the spring of 1957, though not so serious or prolonged as that of 1921 and 1933–34 caused some strain on water undertakers. During the war almost all new work was stopped, and capital investment restrictions have prevented water undertakers from making up all the lost ground in time. But the new works which are being completed every year are rapidly reducing the gap between supply and demand in moderately dry years.

Clearly, the Defence Regulations could not be relied on for ever and the question the Government have had to consider is whether it is right to take permanent powers. Much has happened in the world of water supplies since we had the temporary Act of 1934. We have good cause to be proud of what has been done towards bringing piped water to all but the most remote areas of this country. Statutory water undertakers now supply very many people who used until recently to depend on their own wells. Farmers in many cases use supplies from the mains for watering their stock and for things like milk cooling. I do not think it is generally realised that 95 per cent. of the population of Great Britain now have piped water supplies. In rural areas the figures are 90 per cent. supplied in England, 80 per cent. in Wales and 86 per cent. in Scotland. This, I think, contrasts favourably with, say, the figure of 66 per cent. of the total population in the United States of America.

In town and country alike, the building of new houses with bathrooms and hot water systems is naturally leading to the use of more water in the home. New industries which use large quantities of good quality water, such as chemical and plastics industries, have developed since the war. It is. I think, worth remembering that, with all the restrictions, more than £240 million has been spent, since the war, on water supplies in Great Britain. But because more people now depend on public supplies, industry and agriculture, as well as the town housewife, are likely to suffer if water undertakings cannot meet their commitments.

The procedure of the Water Act, 1945, and the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, by which permanent works are authorised is too long-winded for dealing with drought emergencies. It cannot be completed in less than six weeks and, if there are objections, is very much more lengthy, by which time it is probably raining "cats and dogs." The Government have decided, after looking at the use which has been made of the Defence Regulations, that permanent powers should be available. This Bill has therefore been drafted to provide powers under which the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to make orders temporarily authorising water undertakers to get more water in various ways.

The Bill broadly follows the lines of the 1934 Act which, though passed in such a hurry, proved quite serviceable. Clause 1 allows my right honourable friends to make orders on the application of the appropriate statutory water undertakers. The Minister concerned has to be satisfied that a shortage of water supplies exists or is threatened because of an exceptional shortage of rain. The Bill does not use the word "drought," because, in the meteorological sense, a drought occurs after a comparatively short period without rain but in the context of this Bill I use the term "drought" in the sense of a shortage of rain so prolonged as to cause or threaten a breakdown in water supplies. This could occur when the rainfall was below average for a long period, without there being a drought in the meteorological sense. Even in a wet summer there might be a shortage in areas dependent on underground supplies, if the preceding winter had been dry.

An order under Clause 1 may authorise the undertakers to take water from a source not normally used—it may be a river, lake, stream or borehole. An order may also vary restrictions or obligations resting on the undertakers as to the amount of water that may be pumped from a river or the amount of compensation water to be discharged from their reservoirs. Supplementary provisions may be included in orders for such matters as entry on land at not less than seven days' notice, and the carrying out of works. In deciding whether to make orders the Ministers must consider the interests of everyone concerned with the conservation or use of the water for agriculture, fisheries, industry, navigation or, indeed, any other purpose. Orders made under this clause will operate for a period of not more than six months and, by Clause 4, may be extended for a further period, but not so as to exceed one year altogether. Penalties are provided if water undertakers contravene certain provisions of an order.

The First Schedule sets out the procedure to be followed in applying for and making orders under this and the next clause. Under the Defence Regulations, no procedure was laid down for ensuring that everyone concerned was informed and given an opportunity to make representations. In practice, Ministers have insisted on notice being given, on applications being advertised, and, where there were objections, on holding an inquiry or hearing.

This procedure cannot, however, be so satisfactory as providing by legislation for a definite procedure under which everyone knows what his rights and duties are. The procedure set out in the First Schedule is similar to that for orders under the Water Acts, but allows for more rapid action. Advertisement is now once and not twice. Advertisement and notice allow seven days, instead of twenty-eight for the making of objections. A hearing may be arranged instead of a public local inquiry. Incidentally, the orders are not subject to special Parliamentary procedure.

Your Lordships may ask how the procedure fits in with the accepted recommendations of the Franks Committee. It will not, of course, be possible in an emergency procedure like this to provide all the safeguards envisaged, but I would ask your Lordships to remember that this is a Bill to give temporary powers. The orders made under it cannot permanently deprive anyone of his land or rights. The Bill does provide a definite procedure where none existed before. The Second Schedule to the Bill provides for compensation to be paid to people injuriously affected by the taking of water or by the use of land. The provisions follow the same lines as those of the 1934 Act. Under the provisions of Clause 2, my right honourable friends will be able to make orders, if necessary, authorising water undertakers to supply water by means of stand-pipes or tanks in the streets. Clause 3 revokes Defence Regulations 50A and 56. Defence Regulation 50, to which I have already referred, will be revoked by the Land Powers (Defence) Bill, which is now before another place. Existing orders could not all be replaced immediately, and they may remain until March 31, 1960, to give time for them to be replaced by orders made under the Water Act, 1945. Clauses 4, 5, and 6 are formal. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a useful measure. It dispenses with yet more Defence Regulations, and it fills an obvious gap in our water legislation. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Mancroft.)

3.26 p.m.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has explained, in his accustomed capable manner, that this is principally, as is indeed the case, a procedural Bill. It is part of the movement away from the Defence Regulations, as the source of enabling power, to definitive legislation by way of Acts of Parliament. I think the noble Lord can rest assured that we on this side of your Lordships' House will do nothing to impede or delay the free passage of the Bill.

The noble Lord made some general references to the question of the supply, use and distribution of water in this country, and there was, of course, the impressive and comprehensive debate on the whole subject in May of last year. That does not preclude speakers in your Lordships' House this afternoon from referring to some of the general questions in connection with water supply, especially as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in winding up the debate in May of last year, expressed regret—which I think was generally shared—that there were not more frequent discussions and considerations of this question in your Lordships' House.

This Bill is really mis-named. It is not a Water Bill: it is a procedural Bill. It does not add, so far as I can see from the Memorandum or an examination of its clauses, to any of the powers possessed by the Minister; nor does it do anything to face up to, and still less to remedy, the serious problems in regard to the conservation of water resources, the using of our resources and their distribution. One could riot help feeling somewhat encouraged at the figures which the noble Lord gave as regards supply, especially in lie rural areas, but it is still the case that in some parts of the countryside there remains a lamentable lack of water supplies, affecting not only cottages and residences but, as a recent Report has shown in another connection, quite a number of rural schools.

Nor, so far as can be judged, has there been any appreciable progress since May of last year in the re-grouping of the many smaller water undertakings. There are, as your Lordships know, in excess of 1,000 water undertakings in this country. It has long been recognised that that is much too large a number and that there is an urgent case for regrouping these undertakings. Indeed, as far back as 1945, your Lordships will recall, the Coalition Government issued a White Paper, and in that White Paper it was stated that there should be a national water policy—and here I quote: to ensure that all available resources are used to the best advantage and to secure a proper distribution". There is a good deal of perturbation in parts of the country at the permanent fall in the level of rivers as a result of the increasing demand, and indeed the increasing user, of water, especially by industry.

I think that one is entitled to ask the noble Lord to tell the House, when he replies, what the Minister is doing to meet the problems, the growing problems, and in many cases the urgent problems, of our water supplies. He has pretty wide powers under the Act of 1945, and, as the late Lord Waverley said in the debate in May last year, it would be interesting to know whether the Minister is effectively using those powers in a constructive manner or whether he is relying too much upon the Central Advisory Committee and upon a number of subcommittees which have been appointed either from the Central Advisory Committee or from elsewhere. In September, 1956, the Minister issued a circular to water undertakings urging them to consider questions of re-grouping. It is known—indeed, I think it was confirmed recently by the Minister himself when speaking to a conference—that very little has been done under that circular. I think the view will be generally shared that it is no good the Minister relying upon mildly hortatory injunctions to the many small water authorities. It is no good even referring to the fact, which is the case, that the Minister has power, in default of voluntary action, to take action himself. Even that threat, if it be a threat, has produced, so far as one can ascertain, practically no result, having regard to the number of undertakings which exist.

Moreover, the undertakers, small or large, supplying water in areas where atomic plants or plants associated with atomic energy are being established, are very perturbed, having regard to the relatively enormous quantities of water which are used and consumed by such establishments, as to the—not ultimate, but almost the proximate effect upon their position and their responsibilities and liabilities for supplying water. We were told by the noble Lord that since the war something like £240 million (I think that was the figure) has been spent on water undertakings in this country. That is a very impressive figure, but it is not so impressive when it is related to what has been spent on electricity, on gas, and on atomic energy. I should be the last to criticise the capital expenditure on either one or all of those activities, but I think we are at times inclined to overlook the important part that water plays in the carrying on of those activities and the increasing part it plays in the development of industry, leaving aside the need for the preservation, conservation and proper distribution of water for the health of the people. What we need is a new Water Act in which the problems of conservation, control and user are dealt with, and also—and this is important—in which powers to prevent avoidable waste of water are given to the appropriate Minister, with some feeling of assurance that the Minister will exercise the powers given to him.

With those general remarks I should like to pass to one particular provision in the Bill, and I suppose that in this connection I should declare an interest. No doubt as an undeserved tribute to my normal temperance, I have become a member of the Metropolitan Water Board. The Board have enjoyed for some time power to fill their reservoirs above the prescribed limit in cases of drought or near-drought. That power was conferred under Defence Regulation 56. The power itself under the order, which is entitled the Metropolitan Water Board (User of Reservoirs) Order, 1956, expires in July of this year. The power has been used by the Board on three occasions when dry summers made it necessary that the reservoirs should be fuller than is prescribed under the normal provisions of control.

The effect of being able, in case of need, to fill the reservoirs beyond the prescribed limit is that the amount of the reduction of the flow over Teddington Weir is reduced and that, of course, is an important consideration. The Metropolitan Water Board cannot go below the prescribed flow except with the consent of the Port of London Authority and the London County Council. If this power is not renewed, if the Metropolitan Water Board will not be able to do what they are at present able to do, fill the reservoirs beyond the prescribed limit, then it means that, in case of drought or near-drought, the flow over Teddington Weir will be pro tanto diminished.

I cannot appreciate why, if this order was justified, if the Minister of the day was prepared to agree to it, and indeed to make it, and with the knowledge that it has been usefully used during the period, it should now be the view of the Government that no such power should be granted. Having given indirect notice to the noble Lord that I intended to raise this detailed question, I would say that unless he can give me a satisfactory answer this afternoon I greatly hope that he will consult with the Minister and that he may be able to indicate on the Committee stage that the Government will be prepared to amend the provisions of the Bill so that an order of this character can be made at the instance and on the representations of the Metropolitan Water Board. With those general comments, I restate the fact that we on this side will do nothing to impede the passage of this Bill.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would mind clarifying a point which I may have taken up incorrectly? I think the noble Lord implied that the atomic energy power stations required an excess quantity of water. So far as atomic energy requirements of water are needed to make up their boiler water and cooler water, I would point out that the amount is no greater than any ordinary steam or power station requires. I should like clarification, if he can give it me, on that point.

LORD LATHAM

My Lords, I must confess that I cannot claim to be more than normally informed as to the requirements of atomic energy installations. I may be wrong. If so, I am in company with a large number of people, because I think it is generally felt—it may be only an assumption—that these installations consume much larger quantities of water than an ordinary power station or a comparable installation. If I am wrong, so much the better.

3.42 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords. I rise only to say that the purpose of this Bill seems to enjoy the unusual distinction of being approved by all the local government associations—at least, it has been so far. I think it is felt reasonable that, in exceptional circumstances, the Minister should be possessed of exceptional powers, and it seems reasonable, too, that these powers should be exercised under ordinary law rather than under Defence Regulations. The protection in the proposed Schedule against the misuse of these powers is also considered reasonable.

The question of what the Bill omits to do, however, opens up a much larger subject which I am afraid I have not come prepared to discuss. I sympathise with the noble Lord in his impatience, as I understood it, that sometimes the procedure in regard to water supplies seems to go extraordinarily slowly in the case of joint schemes and new schemes. I think, however, that although it is always attractive to wish that a dictator would take the whole matter in his hands quickly and put everything right, when one reflects, one realises that these schemes often cause less friction and probably are more effectively carried through by the ordinary democratic procedure of consultation and getting general agreement, even though, as I have said, the process often seems interminable. However, so far as this Bill goes I certainly hope that it will be passed.

3.45 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I always wish that when I was quite small and had to take a powder Lord Mancroft had been there to administer it. In intro ducing this Bill, he tells us that we are now shaking off the Defence Regulations, when, in point of fact, instead of carrying the pack on our backs we are now actually having it grafted into our bodies. But, like my noble friend Lord Gage, I realise that in the circumstances in which we are placed some such Bill as this is essential.

Before entirely concurring, however, I should like to say now why it ought to draw our attention to the importance of the whole problem. I remember well when the Water Act was passed. I hoped for great things from that Act. Shortly afterwards I had to sit on a Committee on a Water Bill, and during the course of the Bill we were told that out of the whole of the Peak District, the most prolific water-bearing district in the country, there was only one small unpolluted source, which was the little river Manifold. All the other great rivers were polluted. The rivers of Leicestershire were so polluted that they could not be brought into use. That was the situation at that time. I think something has been done since which I will mention in a moment.

There is another side to this question. When I was a young man anyone providing a water supply for a house and a family always reckoned on twelve gallons a day per head. During the sittings of that Committee I worked out that the normal consumption of a family in a modern house was something like thirty-six gallons a head. Our need for water is growing greater and greater every day—by that, I mean the need for ordinary domestic supplies. In addition, our powers of pollution are much greater, because detergents are used by practically every family and every laundry. So not only is our supply of water very restricted, but our destruction of water is much greater.

Noble Lords opposite will remember that when their Government was in power it passed Water Act after Water Act, and I think they must now reflect rather painfully that those Acts have been largely inoperative. The reason is simple. Most cities and people who pollute water do so under the proviso in the 1876 Act. If you come to a modern city and say to those concerned, "You must cleanse your water supply. This must go forward ", they can quite properly say, "We have done nothing against the law. We have complied absolutely with the law and, if you are going to put this heavy capital expenditure upon us, then the Government must be prepared to give a substantial contribution." It seems to me that in order to tackle this question, the Government will need to provide a large sum of money, and, as time goes on and that expenditure is delayed, the amount will increase more and more. We must all be aware of that, and I think it is a most serious problem which ought to receive more attention than it does. At the same time, this Bill is concerned with dealing only with an emergency, and I realise that it is a Bill that we must have.

There is, however, this one point of detail on the Bill to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The Bill, in the Schedule, talks about an "arbitrator". In Scotland for a long time we have preferred a much better form of English. We use the word "arbiter" and we like to stick to that; and in most Bills dealing with an arbitrator in England there is a provision that in Scotland there is to be an arbiter. I do not see that in this Bill, and I suggest that on the Committee stage we should go back to what is a better form of English—or, at any rate, of Scots.

3.52 p.m.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, when I first looked at this Bill I felt, like the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that this was a question of casting out motes and getting beams, because we are told that we get extra freedom when we go away from Defence Regulations and saddle ourselves with a Statute in their place. But when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, introduce the Bill I changed my view, because I then saw more clearly the real purpose of the Bill and its necessity. I feel there is no doubt that this Bill fills a need; that it is wanted, and that it will be welcomed not only by local authorities but by the water industry in general.

In introducing the Bill, however, the noble Lord made one very important statement on water policy, and emphasised something which some of us, as individuals in the water industry, have long thought about—the wrongness of over-insurance in this matter. He asked why a Bill of this kind should be necessary at all, and whether, in a perfect world, there ought not to be sufficient supplies ready for maximum consumption in the time of minimum rainfall. The noble Lord emphasised that that would be over-insurance; but in a sense it does adumbrate a rather new thought in the water industry, because we in that industry have been accustomed always to try to provide for what is known as the three-dry-year period, which in fact is almost the driest and shortest time of supply that one can possibly get. It is perfectly true, however, that as more and more land is taken up for reservoirs and more and more water has to be taken from rivers, we must be careful not to over-insure and so waste the resources of money and nature that we have in this small country. It becomes obviously necessary, therefore, that we should have some statutory provision for dealing with the emergency and crisis which, even in the best of planning can never be absolutely avoided.

In introducing the Bill, the noble Lord made another statement which caused a little trouble to me at first, because he said that nowhere in the Bill was the word "drought" used. It is used on the front page of the Explanatory Memorandum, of course, but is not in the Bill itself. There a drought is called "an exceptional shortage of rain": which leads me to my next point—that if we are not to have these emergency powers applied, when there is a statutory drought (and lawyers already know what a "statutory drought" is) but only in times of "exceptional shortage of rain", while that is very right and proper, it means that under the Bill water undertakings will not be able to get orders for emergency measures, as they have in the past, when it is found that there is a temporary shortage of water due not to any drought, statutory or otherwise, but to the fact that the undertaking has not made sufficient provision for the rising consumption in their area. I believe that that will be a great spur towards the re-grouping that we all want to see brought about, for an authority will no longer be able to get emergency power under a Defence Regulation (I believe it was Number 56) to make an additional abstraction from a river or source, or reduce a compensation flow, merely because of their own lack of foresight. The Bill provides for exceptional shortage of rain but not for exceptional shortage of foresight, which I believe is a very important point.

The other point to which I should like to draw attention, because I do not think anybody else has done so in the debate so far, is the question of river boards. I am sure we shall all agree that river boards are becoming of ever greater importance, and their close co-operation with water undertakings must be ever closer as time goes on. I do not believe that river boards will really be affected by this Act. They will be in no worse position under the Minister's orders under this Act than they were under orders under the Defence Regulations; but there is just the question of the notice to be given. As I read the First Schedule in conjunction with Clause 2 of the Bill, notice will be given to a river board only where the water is being taken from a source or discharge of compensation water is involved. Those are obvious cases when a water board must have notice, but, as I read it, the very next item in the Schedule—"Orders which authorise the execution of any works "—does not provide that the Minister will be under any obligation to give the water board any notice. I wonder whether that is not a point that we shall have to consider as the Bill proceeds, because I am not sure that water boards would not be right in asking for notice to be given when emergency works are to be done on their rivers.

Another point to be considered with regard to river boards is whether they ought not to be entitled to notice not only when abstraction is to be made from their river or there is to be any alteration of a statutory flow but also when some source is being tapped under these Emergency Orders which ultimately might seriously affect, though not directly (and perhaps not obviously to the authority obtaining the order), the flow of their river. I do not think there are any other specific points that I wish to raise. I gave the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, very short notice that I should raise those two points. I have no doubt that your Lordships will see fit to give this Bill the Second Reading which I think it deserves.

4.0 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, before I begin the few words that I wish to say to your Lordships, I must declare a personal interest in the Bill, because I am a director of a statutory water company. Secondly, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading for not having been here when he made his speech, but unfortunately I was detained outside. There are two reasons why I believe that all of us who are involved in water undertakings will approve of this Bill: first, because I believe it is perfectly proper that what has been done in the past under Defence Regulations—which, after all, were purely temporary affairs—should now be turned into Statute Law; and, secondly, because the powers which this Bill gives will be extremely valuable to water undertakings.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in that I trust this Bill will give more impetus to the re-grouping of undertakings. The point which the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, made, that it will be possible to get water to meet a defect of nature but not one clue to neglect by the undertaking, will do a great deal to encourage the minor undertakings to come together among themselves. My final point concerns a matter which I do not think is a real source of danger. In the past, the powers under the Defence Regulations have not been used to any wide extent, and we trust that the Minister will not allow them to be used too much in the future. With those few words I think I can recommend your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

My Lords, if I may rise again for a moment, I also should have declared an interest, in that I am a director of a statutory water authority.

4.2 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I rise to associate myself completely with the observations of my noble friend Lord Latham. The purpose of this Bill is quite clearly set out in the Explanatory Memorandum: it is to provide permanent legislation to enable the Minister … to give statutory water undertakers temporary powers, and the Bill takes the place of the temporary legislation of the Defence Regulations which exist to-day. That is the sole purpose of the Bill. In so far as that is the purpose, I approve of it. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will, I am sure, agree, because for several yeas now I have had the opportunity of drawing his attention to the fact that these Emergency Regulations, which the present Government had committed themselves to get rid of, still exist in substantial numbers. I welcome every effort to reduce that number. I find, as I always thought, that it is not such an easy undertaking as it seemed to be in 1951, before the present Government came into office. Even when this Bill is passed, there will still be a number of Regulations left, and I imagine that I shall not be entirely deprived of the opportunity of making the speech I normally make when these Regulations are extended for another year.

However, this Bill gives us the opportunity of discussing the general water situation of this country. As we are discussing Emergency Regulations, I would say that a water emergency is with us always. I do not remember a single summer when there has not been in some part of the country a water emergency. It seems to me very bad organisation of our resources that not only should we accept and recognise a permanent shortage of water somewhere in the country every year but should be actually legislating for it and asking for temporary measures to provide for something which we know is permanent. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, pointed out, as did other noble Lords, the position is not likely to improve.

There is—and I am very glad to note it—an increasing demand for water. That arises partly, of course, as a result of an increasing demand by industry. But there is also an increasing domestic demand for water, first because of better housing, and also because of the provision of bathrooms for nearly every family. I understand from my noble friend that 90 per cent. of our population now have a water supply in their own homes; and that proportion is going to increase. Then the habit of doing the washing at home is increasing. Laundry bills are higher than they were, so that fewer people send their washing to the laundry and more do it at home. The result of that, naturally, is an increasing demand for water. There is also the fact of an increasing population; every year 250,000 more people use water.

Furthermore, with this increasing demand there is a tendency for a decrease in supply as a result of pollution, the use of detergents and the increasing losses caused by industry. Next (this is something that has not been mentioned in to-day's debate). I believe there is an increasing waste of water. In these days, when people can turn on the tap and get as much water as they like, if one watches the position in most homes one sees that the amount of water wasted is appalling. Various remedies have been suggested, such as the possibility of the use of meters and making people pay according to their consumption. I am sure that there would be a considerable saving in the consumption of water if people had to pay according to the amount of water they consumed. I am not seriously putting that suggestion forward at this stage, because one would have to give much more consideration to its implications, and it would be a new feature in our domestic life if we had to pay for water directly in accordance with consumption. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a considerable waste.

Finally, there is a waste due to the multiplicity of authorities dealing with water. My noble friend Lord Latham pointed out that there were over 1.000 water authorities. That seems to me a shocking multiplicity of organisation. This country does not need over 1,000 water authorities to supply us with the water we require. I understand that three-quarters of them are public authorities, yet we have not hesitated to reduce the functions of public authorities where it has been thought to be necessary in the interests of efficiency; and I should have thought this was a case in which there ought to be considerable grouping of water authorities. Indeed, in my own view, and I believe in the view of my Party, there ought to be nationalisation of water supply in order to get the greatest amount of efficiency.

I raise these matters, which are not entirely relevant to the Bill, because, while we are not in any way opposing or wishing to delay this Bill, I should not like it to be thought that it really deals with the question of water supplies in this country. It does just what it purports to do in the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum; it converts emergency, temporary Regulations into permanent ones; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, said in his picturesque language, instead of being tied up temporarily we are being tied up permanently. That is not exactly my idea of giving greater freedom to the people, but it is an illustration of the fact that some of the Regulations, at any rate, really were necessary. As noble Lords are discovering more and more, it has not been possible to repeal these Regulations. All that is being done in an increasing number of cases is to make them permanent. Nevertheless, I hope now that this Bill will be approved without further delay.

4.10 p.m.

LORD CLITHEROE

My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the general question of water supply, on which I should much like to address your Lordships on some other occasion, but I would say a word about this short Bill. When I first read it I had the opinion, like other noble Lords, that it was to end some statutory regulations, but I soon observed that it was merely making them permanent, so naturally I became somewhat anxious. I recognise that there is need for a Bill of this sort, but I want to make two points about it. First of all I think that as a result of this Bill there may be a tendency to encourage improvidence. That should be carefully watched, because some authorities who are poorer or worse placed than others may well decide to rely upon the terms of the Bill in times of shortage rather than make the provision which they really ought to make for supplies in their own areas. I hope that this Bill will not be used in any way to encourage such improvidence.

The second point I want to make is about non-statutory undertakings. The Bill talks only about statutory undertakings, but, as noble Lords will be well aware, a great many people in this country are supplied with water from non-statutory undertakings. I observe, from Clause 1 (b), that the Minister has authority for suspending or modifying, … any restriction or obligation to which the undertakers are subject as respects— (i) the taking of water from any source", from the point of view of non-statutory suppliers. What that means is that some neighbouring authority has the right under this Bill to ask the Minister to take water from a non-statutory undertaker, but a non-statutory undertaker has no right under this Bill to ask for aid from a statutory undertaker. I wonder whether perhaps my noble friend Lord Mancroft, either in his reply or probably at some later time, would give a little attention to that point.

4.14 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as a consumer, thought that more capital should have been spent on water, and naturally we should all agree with him, whereas my noble friend Lord Waldegrave spoke of the dangers of over-insurance, and as a producer who has had to obtain the capital he strikes the more cautious note. The only answer is that we have been desperately short of capital, and if we had put it into water it would have meant taking it from some other pressing need. In as much as we are still short of capital, I believe that this is a good Bill, because it would enable the capital to be stretched in an emergency.

But why I rose to speak was to ask my noble friend Lord Mancroft a question about the seven-days' notice. In Clause 1, it is provided that seven days' notice has to be given to enter upon any land to take water or conduct works. In his speech on the Bill my noble friend mentioned an inquiry. I have not managed to find anything in the Bill about an inquiry, but if there is to be seven days' notice plus an inquiry, some fair time must elapse before action can take place. Of course, water undertakings must be expected to use foresight, but there are undertakings which are dependent on recent rainfall and recent flush of rivers.

Not very long ago my noble friend Lord Mancroft and I were jointly concerned in an emergency, when the water supply of a popular holiday district in North Cornwall ran practically right out. That was put right largely owing to the efforts of my noble friend, who was able to secure all manner of emergency measures and the co-operation of a neighbouring water authority which had sufficient water.

Through my noble friend's efforts, this authority was able to lay down temporary mains, down roads and across fields, and to pump a supply into the system of the deficient authority. I wonder how that emergency could have been tackled if seven days' notice plus an inquiry had had to be given before anything could be done. Furthermore, could this situation have been solved at all if there had been no co-operation between these two undertakings? If there really is a delay of this nature, as seems apparent from the Bill, then one can only surmise that authorities may look at making orders in advance against an emergency and probably not at the time, which is not a desirable thing. Perhaps my noble friend can set my mind at rest by saying that there is some other procedure whereby, in the event of a real emergency such as we jointly experienced, timely action can be taken.

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, I should like to say how much I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, has said, because it is the case in Scotland that large areas of land are provided with water either by private people or by private undertakings, certainly not by any statutory undertaking. I have not had time to study the Bill carefully, but I hope the noble Lord will bring the point up at a later stage.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the friendly welcome you have given to this little Bill. I had no idea that so many Members of your Lordships' House were interested in water. A number of points have been raised, but I think we can deal with most of them, or look into them carefully, before Committee stage. Several points have been raised which we cannot possibly deal with on Committee stage because they have nothing whatever to do with the Bill; nevertheless I welcome them as interesting and a guide to my right honourable friend on the way in which your Lordships are thinking.

The principal point raised was that of re-grouping. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, rightly points out that there are nearly 1,000 undertakings in this country, and wrongly points out that the best way to make them most efficient is by nationalisation. I disagree with him, politely but very cordially. We are trying to make them more efficient within the bounds of existing legislation. I should like to tell your Lordships that there have been twelve more amalgamations since we last debated the matter and other discussions are going on. My right honourable friend is not dissatisfied with the progress which is being made.

I would adopt the idea of my noble friend Lord Gage, who did not favour dictatorship, and I think it is important that there should be time for negotiation. Many more proposals are expected to come before my right honourable friend within the next few months. So far, five compulsory orders have been announced and more are under way. In many cases officers of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have joined in local discussions. In point of fact, nearly 700 undertakings are actively considering at the moment the question of amalgamation and re-grouping. The curious thing—and I think I made this observation in the course of the last debate—is that brewery undertakings seem to amalgamate much more readily and speedily than water undertakings.

My noble friend Lord Saltoun drew attention to the use of the word "arbiter", which he prefers; and asks that it should be included in the Bill. I am glad to say that we have forestalled him. If he will look at paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule, he will find that it reads as follows: In the application of this Schedule to Scotland, for any reference to an arbitrator there shaft be substituted a reference to an arbiter.

LORD SALTOUN

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I am so blind that I had not seen that.

LORD MANCROFT

Perhaps the noble Lord, as a sort of penance for his oversight, would like to try to find for us a better word than "undertaker" to describe the person who provides the water.

My noble friend Lord Waldegrave asked a question about river boards. Seven days' notice does apply to the river boards. There is always the question here of balancing the two interests, speed against fair play. I think the noble Earl will find—as I am sure that he, with his technical experience, will agree—that water undertakers are usually in pretty close touch with their local river board and will no doubt have consulted them before deciding to apply for an order. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, who told me that he was unable to remain in his place, asked me about the Metropolitan Water Board's Use of Reservoirs Order of 1956. I think this is a matter that will have to be gone into carefully before the Committee stage, because this order, which I understand expires on July 31 of this year, cannot be extended under the Bill. We shall have to see if we can help the noble Lord in any way. So far as I can see at the moment, without taking advice, the only way open to the Board to get an extension of the powers which they now have would be to promote a Private Bill.

I was also asked about the amount of water used by the Atomic Energy Authorities. There is here a slight difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and my noble friend Lord Stonehaven. I understand that huge quantities are in fact used for cooling, but it is mostly seawater or brackish water from estuaries: comparatively little drinkable water is used. My noble friends Lord Clitheroe, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Hawke all hoped that this Bill would not encourage improvidence.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

If the noble Lord is departing from atomic power stations, I should like to make this point. It is a fact that atomic power stations vary in their water needs according to climatic conditions. In the case of the Blackwater Station, where there is a surrounding rainfall of not more than eighteen inches, the Essex County Council had to try to arrange for supplies from other sources. This aspect of the matter must be considered, because of the varying climatic conditions and the much lower level of main water resources in some parts of the country compared with others.

LORD MANCROFT

I take the noble Viscount's point, but I think it raises a much bigger problem than the small one raised by the Bill. However, that does not minimise its importance.

LORD REA

I am not certain of my facts, but I think the noble Lord will find that in the case of Calder Hall and Sellafield the large amounts of water used are all fresh water.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

Perhaps when I spoke I did not make myself clear. What I meant to say was that the atomic power stations, in my opinion—and I ask to be put right on this—use no more water than the equivalent-sized station working on conventional fuel.

LORD MANCROFT

Obviously the question of supplying water on a longterm basis to major installations, such as atomic power stations, raises a bigger point than is raised in this modest Bill, which is now beginning to look much more important than it was when I introduced it.

I should like to emphasise and endorse the point made by three or four noble Lords concerning improvidence and incompetence. This Bill is not in any way an encouragement to incompetent authorities. Most competent authorities, I think, can realise that a crisis is corning upon them, and that a serious water situation is likely to develop, well before the seven days' period, and I think a matter of compromise there is easily brought about. My noble friend Lord Hawke recalled the occasion in Cornwall, nearly two years ago, when he and I were almost compelled to brush our teeth in light ale for a fortnight. That crisis had been foreseen for several weeks ahead, but it was far too serious for the authorities to cope with. Other small points have been raised, but in view of the fact that we have other Business before us, I will ask your Lordships' permission to examine them carefully and, if necessary, deal with them on the Committee stage. I am grateful to your Lordships for giving this Bill a friendly welcome, and I am only sorry that it does not go as far as some of your Lordships seem to think it should.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.