Lords Sitting of 11 March 1958

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl of Romney—Took the Oath.
The Viscount Lambert—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NAVAL REPAIRS IN PRIVATE SHIPYARDS
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble Leader, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who I regret is unable to be here to-day, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government (a) how many ships and smaller craft are at present under repair in private shipyards, and what is the estimated cost of these repairs (b) how many times in the year 1957, and in respect of how many contracts, has delay been sanctioned on Admiralty work in private shipyards because of the pressure of work on merchant ships.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, there are at present two of Her Majesty's ships—that is, one destroyer and one submarine—nine Royal Fleet Auxiliaries
2
and twenty-eight smaller vessels in hand for refit, conversion or modernisation in private shipyards, at a total cost of just over £3 million. With regard to the second part of the Question, Admiralty work in private shipyards is, of course, sometimes affected by the needs of merchant ships, but only in one case during 1957 did the Admiralty specifically agree to such delay.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, if there are cases where the pressure of private work in private shipyards causes delay, would it not be advisable for Her Majesty's Government to retain the use of the Royal Dockyards?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is a difficult question. Refit by contract to-day is very exceptional. In the 1955–56 Estimates provision for contract refits was £11 million; in the 1958–59 Estimates it is only £1·8 million.

OVERTIME IN ADMIRALTY DOCKYARDS
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble Leader, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total number of hours of overtime worked in the Admiralty Dockyards in this country for the year ended 31st December, 1957.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the total number of hours of overtime worked in The Admiralty Dockyards in

3
this country during the year ended December 31 last was between 9 and 10 million.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, in view of that figure, have Her Majesty's Government considered spreading the work over to existing Royal Dockyards rather than closing down some of them?
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, Her Majesty's Government have considered that very carefully indeed; and we have also considered the problem of reducing the period of overtime. In some cases, however, dockyard overtime is quite unavoidable—for example, on harbour vessels attending on the Fleet, in meeting arrivals and departures and the ebb and flow of tides and so on; and on occasion to ensure the most economical progression of work: for example, when waiting for one job and not throwing another out of balance. A balance has to be struck between the two, and we think in the present contemplated reduction of overtime and in the spread of work we have reached the most economical and satisfactory balance we can obtain.

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to constitute a Council on Tribunals; to make further provision as to the appointment, qualifications and removal of the chairman and members, and as to the procedure, of certain tribunals; to provide for appeals to the courts from decisions of, or on appeal from, certain tribunals; to extend the supervisory powers of the High Court and the Court of Session; to abolish certain restrictions on appeals from the Court of Session to the House of Lords; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is ten years since a measure bearing this title—the Children Bill—came before your Lordships' House. That Bill, which was enacted as the Children Act, 1948, was a large measure of social reform. The present Bill deals with two categories of children who are cared for apart from their parents but not by local authorities or voluntary organisations—those who are fostered for reward and those who are adopted. I hope to show that this is an important measure which can justly claim our closest attention and sympathy. I am most grateful to the various societies and individuals who have written to me about the Bill. I invite your Lordships to examine it with critical care. I say "critical care" because this measure concerns the happiness and well-being of children, and I can think of few subjects of legislation where we need to be more sure that our proposals are the wisest, the safest and the most humane that we can devise.
The first Part of the Bill consolidates and modifies what have hitherto been called the child life protection provisions of the law. The second Part amends the law of adoption in the light of the recommendations made by the Hurst Committee in their Report on the adoption of children. I shall discuss each Part in turn. The child life protection provisions of the existing law are contained in the Public Health Act, 1936, and the corresponding enactments relating to London and Scotland and in the Children Act, 1948. They provide that anyone who undertakes for reward the maintenance of a child under school leaving age apart from his parents must give notice to the local authority. The local authority must arrange for the child and the premises to be visited; may fix the maximum number of children to be kept in the premises; may impose other conditions to be complied with, and may apply to a summary court for an order for the removal of a child who is being kept in unsuitable premises, by unsuitable persons, or in an environment that is detrimental to him. Where the foster parent is a relative or guardian, or where

5
the child's welfare is already the responsibility of a competent authority, the provisions do not apply.
These provisions originated towards the end of the last century, when their primary object was to bring baby farming under public supervision and control. The age of the children within the scope of the law was raised in 1908 from five to seven. I hope that your Lordships will allow me a short excursus. If my memory is right, that was done by the Children Act, for which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was largely responsible; and (if he will allow a personal memory) I seem to remember that forty years ago there hung outside his study a cartoon from Punch picturing as Sir Isenbras at the ford those features with which your Lordships' House is now so familiar. I am glad to feel that as one of his successors at the Home Office I was carrying on the work which he developed so well fifty years ago. The age was again raised in 1932 to nine, and in 1948, on the recommendation of the Curtis Committee, to school leaving age. The provisions were not substantially altered in other ways. They are now out of keeping in some respects with other legislation introduced in recent years for the welfare of children, and a judgment of the High Court in 1954, in the case of Wallbridge v. Dorset County Council, has meant that in England and Wales at least their application is uncertain.
We have not found that any radical change in the existing provisions is necessary. The main purpose of this part of the Bill is the same as that of the existing provisions—to ensure the well-being of children fostered for reward. But besides re-stating the law in a way that avoids the uncertainties arising from the High Court judgment, we have thought it advisable to modify the code so as to bring its general shape, emphasis and method more into line with modern ideas and practice. Thus the Bill lays a more positive duty on local authorities to ensure, the well-being of children fostered for reward, and puts a new emphasis on prevention by empowering the local authority, subject to appeal to a court, to prohibit a child's being received in an unsuitable foster home. As under the existing law, there are exceptions for children looked after by
6
a relative or guardian and for those whose well-being is already the responsibility of a competent authority. The Bill also provides a new exemption for children whose care and maintenance are undertaken for not more than a month, and thus excludes many holiday arrangements to which it is inappropriate that the provisions should apply.
I turn now in more detail to some of the main clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 places in the forefront the purpose of Part I. It says that it is the duty of every local authority to secure that children within their area who are foster children are visited from time to time by officers of the authority; and these officers are required to satisfy themselves as to the well-being of the children and to give such advice as to their care and maintenance as may appear to be needed.
Clause 3 provides the means whereby the local authority obtain the information they need to enable them to carry out their duty. A person who proposes to maintain a foster child must tell the local authority not less than two weeks before he receives the child (unless he is received in an emergency), and the local authority have the power to obtain information about the child or its parents or guardian, or any person who was previously looking after him. At present, the requirement is to give one week's notice in advance. The extra week will facilitate inspection and other necessary action by the local authority before the child is received. This duty placed on people who propose to maintain foster children may be an inconvenience to citizens who are admirable foster parents; but we have simplified the form of notification, making it as short as possible, and some arrangement of this kind is inevitable if the local authority are to be enabled to detect those cases in which children may be harmed either deliberately (there are, unfortunately, a few people who are capable of that) or by ignorance. The local authority can exempt anyone from the duty to give notices.
Clause 4 also deals with the local authorities, and gives them the powers they need to carry out the duty of ensuring the well-being of foster children. A properly authorised officer of the authority is entitled to inspect any

7
premises in which foster children are to be or are being kept. Where premises are used wholly or mainly for keeping foster children—in practice this will usually be a commercial institution, as contrasted with a private house—the local authority can impose requirements on the person keeping the children. The local authority may specify, for example, the number, age and sex of the children who may be kept there, and may make requirements about the accommodation and equipment, the medical arrangements and the staff. The local authority may also prohibit a person from keeping a foster child if they think it would be harmful to the child. There is a right of appeal to a court against any requirement or prohibition, and there are penalties for any contravention of a requirement or prohibition and also for any failure to give notices or information.
Some people are prima facie unsuitable to keep foster children. The existing law specifies certain categories of people who may not keep foster children without the consent of the local authority. The list is now out of date, and we think that Clause 6 now comprehends people whose past history contains some recorded event that would justify special precautions before they are allowed to look after other people's children for reward. The sort of thing we have in mind is if the people have been convicted of offences against children or have had their own powers and rights limited in regard to children. Disqualification is not absolute, since circumstances may have changed or may prove, on investigation, not to be such as to warrant barring the person from keeping a foster child. My Lords, I have dealt so far with conditions and prohibitions on the keeping of foster children. There is also a power, similar to the power under the existing law, to remove a foster child from unsuitable surroundings. This power, in Clause 7, may be exercised only on the order of a court on the complaint of a local authority, and there is provision for a single justice to act in an emergency.
The provisions of Part I of the Bill extend to children kept during the holidays—I repeat, during the holidays—in a school not maintained by a local education authority in England or Wales. In
8
those cases the provisions apply with certain modifications. The school authorities are not required to give particulars of each child, and the local authority do not have the power to impose requirements or prohibitions; but if conditions are so bad as to justify such a course, the local authority can apply for a warrant for the removal of children. In Scotland, where the numbers are much smaller, and the Secretary of State bears the central responsibility for both education and child care, supervision of these children will be exercised by the Secretary of State's child care inspectorate; no special provision is needed to enable this to be done.
In continuation of a provision made in the Children Act, 1948, there is also an extension of all the provisions in Part I to children above compulsory school age if, first, they are already under supervision when they reach the upper limit of compulsory school age, and, secondly, they continue to live with the same person. These children remain under supervision until they reach the age of eighteen or leave the foster home, or for any other reason, apart from age, cease to fall within the definition of a foster child.
My Lords, I now turn to Part II of the Bill, which consists of amendments of the Adoption Act, 1950. It may interest your Lordships if I very shortly remind you of the history of adoption legislation in this country, because the first enactment relating to adoption dates from as recently as 1926. There was a Scottish Act in 1930; and again, I think, if my memory is right, the Scottish Act owes many of its provisions to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. There were other enactments in 1939 and 1949. These Acts were consolidated into the Adoption Act, 1950. In 1953, two Secretaries of State (my right honourable friend Mr. James Stuart and myself) appointed a Departmental Committee to consider the present law relating to the adoption of children and to report whether any, and if so what, changes of policy or procedure were desirable in the interests of the welfare of children.
This Committee, under the chairmanship of the late Sir Gerald Hurst, whom many of my older colleagues will remember in another place, reported in 1954

9
and Part II of this Bill is based in substance on the main recommendations of the Hurst Committee's Report. I desire once again to express my personal gratitude to the Committee for the work that they did. I do not propose to discuss in detail the recommendations of the Report, many of which deal with technical matters, but I would say here that, of the recommendations which do not find a place in this Bill, many will be implemented by means of rules and regulations. Despite the comparative modernity of legislation with regard to adoption, it is already established as a social practice in the community. But experience has shown ways in which there is room for improvement, and I propose now to discuss the principal changes made by Part II of this Bill.
The first important change is in Clause 18, which, amongst other things, provides a further ground on which the court is able to dispense with the consent of a parent to the adoption of his or her child. The proper balance between the best interests of the child and the rights of the natural parent is often very difficult to obtain. Adoption is not a case in which the welfare of the child can be the sole and paramount consideration: we are bound to provide that courts should consider also the reasonable wishes of the natural parent. But there are occasional cases in which a parent has for long shown no sign of carrying out the ordinary responsibilities of a parent and no sign of any intention to do so; yet nevertheless refuses to consent to an adoption which would in every way be in the interests of the child. The Bill provides that a court may dispense with the consent of the parent on two grounds: first, that the parent has persistently failed, without reasonable cause, to discharge the obligations of a parent; and, secondly, that the parent seems likely to continue to do so if the adoption order is not made. I hope that this amendment will commend itself to your Lordships as reasonable and desirable.
Clause 22 contains a number of provisions the general intention of which is to extend or clarify the effects of an adoption order in the interests of the adopted person. These provisions are perhaps better discussed in detail in Committee, and all I will say here is that they extend the circumstances in which an adopted child shall be treated as a child
10
of the family for the purposes of succession to property, and equate adopted children with natural children for purposes of certain insurance policies. There are also provisions in respect of affiliation proceedings.
My Lords, I come to another and perhaps a rather more controversial point. One of the ways in which the existing law has been found to cause hardship in its operation is in its requirement that an applicant for an adoption order must be domiciled and resident in England or Scotland. To those of your Lordships who are not lawyers, "domicile" is roughly equivalent to permanent residence, which may either be a domicile of birth or a domicile which the person himself has adopted—a domicile of choice; but it is permanent residence as opposed to residence for the year. The effect of a judgment in the High Court some years ago on the meaning of "resident" is to rule out people whose time is spent mostly abroad, even though they regard this country as their home. For example, people working in the Commonwealth or foreign countries, or abroad in the armed services, are not eligible, even though they may spend some months at a time on leave in this country. Clause 23 enables these people to apply for an adoption order, provided that they can spend the requisite three months' probationary period in this country.
I have dealt so far with people domiciled in England or Scotland but ordinarily resident abroad. We have also considered people who are not domiciled in Great Britain but who are living here and want to obtain the custody of a child during their stay and to be able, if they desire to leave the country at any time, to take the child with them with a view to adopting him in the country of their domicile. Clause 24 allows them to do this.
My Lords, I am well aware of, and I have tried to consider, the view that this provision may on the face of it appear a dangerous one; but I want to point out at once that the Bill provides stringent safeguards. I also ask your Lordships not to forget that the provision will apply to suitable adopters of British nationality who are domiciled abroad—to Canadians and Australians, for example—as well as to those of other nationalities. A person who wants to

11
obtain the custody of a child—and he will obtain it by what we call a "provisional adoption order"—must satisfy the court of his suitability and must in every respect, except that of his domicile, fulfil all the qualifications required of an applicant for an ordinary adoption order. Furthermore, applications of this kind can be heard only before a sheriff in Scotland, or the judge of a county court or the High Court, in England, so that the more difficult questions of adoption law in other countries, which may sometimes fall to be considered, may be examined by a highly qualified judicial Bench.
Although it is true that there are more people in this country wanting to adopt children than there are children available for adoption through adoption societies or local authorities, there are still many children for whom no suitable adoptive home can be found. But there are sometimes people domiciled abroad who are eminently suitable and willing to adopt these children, and we have asked ourselves whether it is right to continue to prevent the children from enjoying the benefits of adoption, restricting them to a childhood and youth spent in institutions which, however admirable they may be, can never fully take the place of a good home.
For example, several cases are known where some people have quite evidently shown themselves to be admirable candidates for an adoption order. Some were coloured Americans who wanted to adopt coloured British children, for whom there is little prospect of adoption in this country. But when the time comes for these people to return home, the child cannot go with them because the law forbids it. We think that the time has come to change the law. I would emphasise once again that this is not an unrestricted right, that the application is considered by the court, and we can be confident that courts will grant orders only when they are fully satisfied as to the suitability of the applicants and of the home to which the child will go.
At the same time as it introduces the provisions in Clauses 23 and 24, the Bill revokes the provision in section 40 of the Adoption Act, 1950, under which British people resident abroad can, if they get a licence from Bow Street or a sheriff court, have a British child sent to them or take
12
him with them for adoption. The Hurst Committee thought—and the Government agree—that the licensing scheme was unsatisfactory because it omitted the three months' probationary period. If that safeguard is needed where the child is to remain in this country after adoption, it is surely needed where the child is to go abroad. I know that this matter has worried some people—I have in mind especially international social services. I should ask those who are worried about the omission of this provision, which previously existed in Section 40 of the 1950 Act, to consider again our Clauses 23 and 24 and perhaps to do me the honour of considering the argument that I have put forward in this speech.
The last of the major provisions to which I wish to draw attention are those in Clause 35 which apply Part I of the Bill—that is, the provisions for the supervision of foster children—to children who have been placed for adoption, whether in law or in fact, under arrangements in which some agent has taken part, and to all children who are awaiting legal adoption. This follows the pattern of the existing law. In both classes of case the object of supervision is to ensure the wellbeing of the children.
My Lords, I come now to a point where we have not followed the recommendation of the Hurst Committee. As your Lordships may remember, I mentioned earlier that not all the recommendations of the Hurst Committee are dealt with in the Bill, and that many will be implemented by rules and regulations. But a few have not been accepted, and of these perhaps the one which has aroused most interest is the recommendation that in England and Wales an adopted person should be given the right, on reaching the age of twenty-one, to have a copy of his adoption order and be able to find out the names of his natural parents and other information about them that is given in his original birth certificate. In Scotland, since 1930, he has been able to do so at the age of seventeen, but the Committee recommended that the age should be raised to twenty-one. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, perhaps will remember moving a provision in regard to Scotland when that Bill was before another place.
There are arguments for and against making these changes, but since the innovation proposed for England has caused

13
anxiety to some of those with great experience in adoption matters, Her Majesty's Government propose to leave the law as it stands and do not propose to adopt the Committee's recommendation that in England the child should be entitled to this information as of right at the age of twenty-one. We propose to leave the law as it stands in both England and Wales, where the information can now be disclosed only if a court of competent jurisdiction so orders, and as it is in Scotland—that is, as the noble Lord. Lord Mathers, proposed it to the House of Commons some twenty-eight years ago. Accordingly, the Bill makes no provision in this matter.
Thanks to your Lordships' patience. I have outlined the main provisions of the Children Bill. I am confident that its general aims are sure of receiving support. No doubt the detailed methods employed to achieve its objectives will be the subject of careful examination in Committee. I should be the last to claim perfection at the time of Second Reading for any Bill which I introduced; but I am sure that I can ask this House to give this Bill a Second Reading, thus signifying our support in principle for yet another measure designed to safeguard the happiness and security of children who for one reason or another, are denied a home of their own. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like first to associate myself entirely with the thanks which the noble and learned Viscount has tendered to the members of the Departmental Committee on the adoption of children. They sat for a year and a half. They made their Report in September, 1954, and have had to wait only three and a half years (as against the usual seven years) before their Report was put into legislative form. I should like also to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount on having, as Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, set up this Committee and on having, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, introduced the Second Reading of this Bill here—all within a period of five years. That is not bad going,
14
and I am sure it must be a great satisfaction to him to be able to introduce a Bill of this kind which he had the duty of initiating in another place some years ago.
This debate is really an interlude between two days of discussion last week on defence and a continuation of that debate for two days this week on foreign affairs. I would submit that the interlude to-day is not wholly unconnected with the world problems which we have been and will be discussing. Last week we discussed the defence of our way of life by military means, but a number of speakers in that debate emphasised the importance of competition in ideas and in service in demonstrating that what we have to offer in our care for the welfare of the individual, and especially of those least able to take care of themselves, is worth preserving and is something for which it is worth making sacrifices; and that we can set in our domestic life an example which will stand comparison with anything that exists in those countries with whom we are at present engaged in the so-called cold war.
Many of your Lordships will have read the Reith Lectures of 1957 by Mr. Kennan, and I should like to make one short quotation from those lectures:
"Many of us dislike to think of domestic problems as battlefields on which our contest with Soviet power is transpiring; but that is exactly what they are. In a thousand ways the tone and spirit that characterise our internal life impinge themselves on our external fortunes."
So I welcome this Bill, not only on its merits as a further step towards the protection of the most vulnerable section of our nation—children who are virtually parentless—but also because it is a recognition of the fact that, in spite of our own preoccupation with military defence, we have other weapons in this world struggle, and this is one of them. Legislation relating to children is not very much publicised and, judging by the appearance of this House this afternoon, not very popular. It is not glamorous or exciting. It does not lend itself to violent political controversy; and I can promise the noble and learned Viscount that so far as we on these Benches are concerned there will be no violent political controversy this afternoon.
The Bill provides an opportunity for paying a tribute to many people who in

15
the cause of children are working quietly behind the scenes without any hope of honours or reward. It is not often that we have the opportunity of saying a kind word for them; but there are in this country a vast number of people who have given years of their lives, often at considerable sacrifice, in the cause of children. I know of some who have spent thirty or forty years in this single-minded manner, devoting the whole of their thoughts and energies to this one cause; and I would submit that this is an occasion when we might pay a tribute to the work that they have done.
I would say a word particularly on behalf of the adoption societies. In the last thirty years their number has doubled, and a very large number of people are concerned in making those societies a success. This Bill is their reward. It is by no means all they desire: there are some things omitted from this Bill which they would rather have had included, and there are included in the Bill some things which they would rather have had omitted. They are not unique in that respect: we all find ourselves in that position. But they would be the first to admit that, on the whole, this Bill is a very great improvement and, generally speaking, is satisfactory.
In view of the full and careful explanation which your Lordships have heard from the noble and learned Viscount, I do not think it is necessary for me to speak on anything in any great detail. I want, however, to draw attention to the fact that adoption of children is playing a considerable part in the social life of this country. Last year there were some 14,000 legal adoptions, apart from unofficial adoptions, every one of which had to be scrutinised by a competent court and approved; and, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, there is still, contrary to general belief, a considerable unsatisfied demand for suitable children to adopt.
In the last fifty years there has been a considerable amount of legislation on the subject of children, and quite rightly. If your Lordships will look at the First and Second Schedules to the Bill you will get some idea of the large number of measures that have been passed between 1908 and the present time. In this Bill no fewer than twenty-seven
16
Statutes are referred to, either by way of comment or by way of amendment.
The noble and learned Viscount has put his finger on two points in the Bill which will be the subject of considerable discussion and controversy, and before I say anything on those points I should like to make one suggestion which I hope he will see his way to accept. He will observe that the Hurst Report deals most exhaustively, and in a thoroughly interesting manner, with the subject in some 300 paragraphs; the Committee made forty-eight principal recommendations and a number of minor ones. It is difficult for anyone taking an interest in this Bill to ascertain, without an immense amount of work, which of these recommendations have been accepted and which rejected. I have tried, but life is short and I just had to give it up. No doubt the information is available to Her Majesty's Government, and it would be a great help if we could be told which of those recommendations are being accepted, which of them can be dealt with by administration, as the noble and learned Viscount has suggested, and which require legislation.
So I would suggest that we might have a table showing in simple form how the Government have dealt with each of these recommendations. In cases where they have not been accepted, perhaps it would be possible to state in a few words the reasons. If this could be done, I think it might simplify and curtail the work on Committee. It would save some of us from putting down Amendments which are already covered by the Bill, and generally. I think, would increase the interest of noble Lords in the measure besides helping us to understand exactly how far the Government have got in implementing the Hurst Report. If the Government agree to provide this table, I hope that they will do it so as to give ample time for it to be studied before the Committee stage.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has dealt with two main subjects, one of which is in the Bill and the other is not. These were in fact the two matters on which I was going to venture to say a few words to your Lordships. The first, the provision not in the Bill, is the recommendation set out in paragraph 201 of the Hurst Report, dealing

17
with inquiries by the adopted person himself. I myself have given the matter very careful thought and I have come to the conclusion that the Committee were right. They were unanimous in recommending that, at the age of twenty-one, an adopted person should have the legal right to go to the registrar of the court before which his adoption was approved and to see what documents are available there which will throw light on his origin and the circumstances under which his adoption was carried out. The noble and learned Viscount was quite right: there are, of course, two sides to this question. Both sides were put to the Committee, and the Committee were unanimously in favour of giving to the person this right. I recognise that there are grave dangers. There is the danger, as is set out in the Report, of the adopted child using this information wrongfully; of the child breaking into a happy family where his existence was not known, and there are all the other dangers which your Lordships can conjure up—even the danger to the child himself of finding out something which it would be better that he did not know. May I reassure your Lordships on one point? Most of the children are illegitimate, and they know from a very early age that that is so. It is a good thing that they should know that, and should get over such unhappiness as they might feel on the subject and take it for granted as they go on in life. So it is not the discovery of illegitimacy which we may fear. They already know that.
Those then are the dangers. On the other hand, there are some children who have a burning desire to know about their origin, and in such cases if the knowledge is kept from them it may do them considerable psychological injury. They will go through life with a question mark: Who are they? What are they? Where do they come from? That does not apply to many. I think the majority of young people at the age of twenty-one who have been happy with their foster parents would be quite content to leave well alone and not to bother. We have the experience in Scotland where this practice has been in operation as regards children from the age of seventeen upwards. So far as I am aware, no harm has been done and relatively few children take advantage of the opportunity. But in the case of those who do wish to do so, I submit that it would
18
be wrong of us to deprive them of the right to knowledge about themselves and about the origin of their birth.
I know that the Government have considered the matter and have given great weight, as they should do, to the views of those who are taking an active part in the work of adopted children; and I freely admit that those people, who ought to know, take a different view from my own. However, I think it right to put this view before your Lordships. It is a view which is very strongly held by a number of people, and, to put it no higher, it seems to me to be an infringement of human rights to prevent a child from having as much information as is available about his origin. There I leave the matter. I do not know whether it would be possible on Committee stage to have another discussion on it, but I think it might be well worth while to have the matter fully threshed out.
One the second point, with which the noble and learned Viscount dealt—the question of taking children abroad—I am completely in agreement with the view which he put forward and have nothing to add to it. I think that he has put the case fairly. Of course there are arguments for and against. In this case the noble and learned Viscount has disregarded the advice of the adoption societies, and the Government have taken their own line and also the line of the Committee. We recognise that the alternative, in the case of a good many of these children who would otherwise have an opportunity of being adopted and going abroad, is that they should live in an institution. I feel that they should not be deprived of this opportunity. But, having said that, I would add that we must recognise that there is some danger in sending children abroad; and if we grant these provisional orders we must be absolutely sure, so far as human thought and effort can prevail, that these children will be properly cared for in the land of their adoption.
It may be that further safeguards might be considered on the Committee stage of the Bill to ensure that that is so. But, speaking for myself—and this is by no means a Party question—I take the view that, provided we can import into this Bill, either by legislation or by administration, all possible safeguards to prevent

19
children from going abroad and living in wholly unsatisfactory conditions, we ought to accept the provisions of Clauses 23 and 24.
Of course there will be other points, with which I have not attempted to deal on Second Reading, at which we shall look when the Bill is considered in Committee. I have said nothing about Part I, which relates to foster parents, because there is no particular comment I wish to make. I will conclude by wholly welcoming this Bill as marking a further stage in the advancement of the welfare of the least fortunate section of the community—these children—and I hope that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House and another place and will meet with the success which we all wish for it.
3.33 p.m.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, after the two speeches to which we have just listened, happily it will not be necessary for me to attempt to detain your Lordships at any great length. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has dealt with a number of points which no doubt will be fully and further investigated in Committee, none of them points with which I specifically wish to deal. First, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the lucidity with which as ever, he has expounded this rather complicated Bill, some of the language of which is legalistic rather than perfectly clear to the layman. I think the Government are to be felicitated on having brought forward, after this long time, a Bill which certainly carries this important matter considerably further.
The noble and learned Viscount said that this was an important Bill, and I do not think that there can be any possible question of the accuracy of that statement. We have moved considerably forward in the last thirty or forty years in this matter of the care of children. I can remember some thirty years ago writing an article to call attention to the evils of what was then rather prevalent in the form of baby farming, of children, unwanted by their parents, being passed on to foster parents, without any inquiries, for a lump sum of money. In that article I ventured to say that this was tantamount to hanging round their children the label "Please murder
20
baby." I was a little horrified to see that taken up and put on a poster all over London with my name underneath, especially as within a week or two of that my own child was born. As she still survives, perhaps any more may be left unsaid. Although that kind of thing is still not impossible, it is made much more difficult by this Bill, and I think that we can all congratulate the Government on having proceeded a long way to the implementation of the Hurst Committee Report.
It seems to me that adoption is becoming more and more important in these days. Both the noble Lords who have spoken have emphasised that there are more babies wanted than there are available. There is, indeed, a baby hunger among many childless couples in this country, and adoption is obviously the only decent and honourable method of meeting this hunger, apart from the rather distasteful method we discussed in your Lordships' House not so very long ago.
There are one or two points to which I should like to draw attention. The noble Viscount said, very properly, that in several respects the Bill did not follow the Hurst Committee's Report. If I may say so, he dealt extremely fairly with the dual sides of the controversy in relation to Clause 18, about the position of the parents as against the adopters. I know that there are two views either of which can be taken. I understand that the law at present says that consent must not be "unreasonably" withheld. The Bill goes further than that, and I am bound to say, though many with whom I am closely associated would not agree with me, that the words:
"…has persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian of the infant, and if the failure is likely to continue…"
represent a very fair holding of the balance, and I am entirely in favour of it.
As the noble and learned Viscount said, there are one or two points in which the Hurst Committee's Report has not been followed. He mentioned in particular the proposal that the child should be able to find out his natural parents' names. But there is one other point, of considerable importance, to which he did not refer, nor did the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—that is. Clause 35, where the

21
period of notice has been lengthened, I am glad to see, to two weeks instead of one. I should have liked to see it Lengthened to six weeks, because two weeks is a very short time for proper inquiries to be made. If a child welfare officer calls several times and gets no answer, it is difficult to remove a child even from unsuitable surroundings. But the Hurst Committee lengthened the time to two weeks and I think that we must base ourselves on that.
There is another recommendation which has not been followed by the Bill and the noble and learned Viscount has not told us why. The Hurst Committee laid down as one of their principal recommendations that all third parties should be made respondents to applications. There is no mention of third parties in the Bill, except in a side-note to Clause 35, which is not part of the Bill. I cannot see why third parties should not be made respondents to an application. Those with whom I have been associated—and I speak with twenty-one years' presidency of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child—feel very strongly on this point. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack did not refer to it. He said only that there are certain things in the Bill which might be implemented by regulation, and, of course, this may be one of hem. I hope he will be able to give us that assurance, at least. If it is the intention that they should be made respondents, it would seem to me to be more satisfactory that that should be part of the Bill. That is the only real criticism I have. I think the Bill is a good one; am pleased it has been brought in, and I have every hope that it will be passed successfully through both Houses of Parliament.
3.40 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the two noble Lords who have already spoken and give a warm welcome to this Bill. I want to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin said: that it would be a great advantage if we could know which of the various recommendations of the Hurst Committee cant be dealt with by regulation, and which cannot. I think that would clear away a great deal of confusion and we should know much better where we
22
stood. One of the most important things referred to by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is that when considering the question of adoption the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. I think I should go even further and say that if the parents are unsatisfactory or difficult, then the welfare of the child is the sole matter that should be considered. That is why I would entirely support what the Bill does in Clause 18, where it makes it possible to dispense with some of the precautions previously taken in the adoption of a child.
One of the points made in the Hurst Report and which, I imagine, is implicit in the Bill is that the child should be told that it is an adopted child. It is a great advantage if the child is told that at a comparatively early age. This will not make any great difference to the development of the child, and if the parents are satisfactory it will accept the fact quite well. But if the information is kept from the child until it is of school age, then it may cause great trouble. I am sure it is right that the child should, as soon as it begins to understand things, be told that it is adopted and that these are not the real parents.
That brings me to the point of whether the child should be told the names of the original parents. There, in spite of the persuasive words used by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I cannot agree with him, but agree with what is laid down in the Bill. I know that the provision in Scotland is different and I know equally well that there has been no trouble in Scotland. Being a Scot myself, I should tend to support what they do in Scotland, but I am bound to say that in this case I think that what is done in England and Wales is preferable. I am sure that the vast majority of children do not want to know the names of the original parents, and that of those who do want to know, a number want to know for the wrong reasons. I am sure it will make for instability in some families if the children know that at the age of twenty-one they can find out who their parents are. I trust, therefore, that there will be no question of weakening on the part of the Government in respect of that matter.

23
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, on one point which he made. He said that the third party should be made respondent in adoption cases. It seems to me a pity that that point has not been put in the Bill. Possibly this provision can be made by regulation, but I do not know, and perhaps the Lord Chancellor will tell us something about that. On only one point I found the Bill a little difficult to follow. It is in Clause 25 (2), where it appears from the wording at the end that there may be occasions when the name of the child's natural parents will be given in some kind of document which which will not be kept secret but will be kept among the family's papers, to which the child may have access. Possibly I may have read the clause wrongly, but I should like the noble and learned Viscount to give me some satisfaction on that point when he replies. Apart from those few comments, I have nothing but praise for the Bill, and I trust it will have a speedy passage through this House and through another place.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has been overwhelmed by congratulations, but that will not prevent me from adding my mead of thanks to him for this Bill. I should like to associate myself, too, with the congratulations paid by my noble friend Lord Silkin to the work of the adoption societies. I am glad to say that, on the whole, the Bill is welcomed by the Association of Municipal Corporations. After all, it is the local councils who will have a large measure of responsibility for its administration. For example, in Clause 4 (3) a new power is given to local authorities—subject to appeal, of course—to prohibit a child from being received by a person for reward if the local authority considers the person unsuitable. That is a power which the local authorities have for a long time sought in regard to the administration of the Children Acts. It may be that when we come to Part II there will be some observations to make, but I think they can be left to the Committee stage of the Bill.
The Bill is welcomed because—and this is a fact that is sometimes overlooked—the Curtis Committee was set up as a
24
result of conditions of neglect, and something more than neglect, of children, not in local authority institutions, but boarded out. I will not trouble your Lordships by recalling the details. On a Second Reading of a Bill, it is, I believe, in order to refer not only to what is in the Bill, but to what is not in it. Therefore I feel I am justified in asking your Lordships to consider for a moment the position of children who are already in the care of local authorities and in institutions. If my information is correct, the conditions in some of the large institutions in this country are getting as bad, or nearly as bad, as those described by the Webbs in the famous Report of 1909.
May I give one example? In one institution such was the pressure on the accommodation that the only place that could be found for a new born baby to sleep in was in the drawer of a dresser in the kitchen. I suppose no one is to blame in regard to that matter. The local authorities are not to blame; certainly the Home Office is not to blame; nor are the people running the institutions. It comes down to the question of the lack of adequate accommodation for children in institutions, notwithstanding all that has been done for the boarding out of children by local authorities. In fact, the boarding out policy, which is now the officially recognised policy, may in some measure be a reason for the troubles to which I have referred.
The Children Act, 1948, if my memory is correct, effected a sudden change in administration. Prior to that Act, the masters and matrons—or, if you like to call them so, the superintendents and matrons—of children's homes had direct access to the appropriate committees. But the Act of 1948 superimposed on that administration the children's officer, and placed on the children's officer those responsibilities which up to that time had been those of the officers of the institutions. That, I think, caused a sudden change in administration, because the whole pressure, so to speak, is towards the boarding out of children. Whether that is right or wrong is a question into which I will not enter into at the moment; but how many learned psychiatrists know what is going on in the mind of a child of two, three, four or five? It is these learned psychiatrists who tell us that these children should be boarded out.

25
The pressure for boarding out being so strong—not, I would suggest, because of the cheapness of boarding out as compared to the cost of a child per head in an institution—the necessity for adequate accommodation recedes into second place, in the hope, of course, that things will adjust themselves. But I would repeal that if my information is correct—and I have no reason to doubt it—in some of the large institutions to-day conditions so far as children are concerned were never worse. I know I should give the names to the noble and learned Viscount, but I feel I should be wanting in my duty if I did not mention that this afternoon.
There is one minor point I should like to raise, and perhaps I am being hypercritical. It is with regard to Clause 37, which prohibits anonymous advertisements by persons offering to keep children. Again I may be taking an entirely wrong view. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the children's officers, who work in very difficult circumstances. They are doing an onerous and responsible job. But some local authorities or children's officers advertise children to be boarded out, and a list of the desirable qualities of the children are enumerated in the advertisement. I have always felt that to be somewhat objectionable. We have to realise that children going into a family where there are other children rarely really belong to that family. The other children know that that child is being received for payment. They know it is not one of them, and children, despite the idyllic stories we sometimes read, can be very cruel one to another, and the cruelty might not come to the surface. Therefore, while one welcomes this Bill and welcomes the increased powers given to local authorities, I hope that, so far as the local authorities are concerned, when the financial arrangements come to be considered they will have adequate financial provision to enable them to carry out fully and completely the responsibilities which this Bill places upon their shoulders. With that, I give the Bill an exceedingly hearty welcome.
3.58 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I rise also to welcome this Bill and to congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon
26
it. I do not think that any of our Departments has a longer or more honourable tradition of humane legislation than the Home Office. I believe that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would concur with me in that view had his experience been no more than that of the ordinary politician or even of a Law Officer. But, of course, he knows the Home Office also as Home Secretary, and I think it must have given him peculiar pleasure that it fell to him, as Lord Chancellor, to introduce this Bill this afternoon—a Bill which carries out many of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which he, as Home Secretary, set up. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, said in congratulating the Departmental Committee. The Chairman of that Committee was an old friend of many of us. I also welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said about the excellent work of the adoption societies.
There are two major matters concerning that part of the Bill which deals with adoption that have been the subject of some discussion this afternoon. I would say a word on each of them. The first is the provisions now contained in Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, cogently though briefly, gave the reasons that persuaded the Government to put in provisions of this kind. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, agree that it was right to do so. I think that many children who under these clauses may get good homes might otherwise have had to continue to live in institutions. That does not mean, however, that there may not be very good reasons for the most searching examination of those clauses to make certain that the safeguards against possible abuses are adequate, and I am certain that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will welcome such examination.
If I might mention just one matter that strikes me on reading the Bill (I have no suggestion on how it should be dealt with), some of the most important words in the first subsection of Clause 24 are that the court has to be satisfied
"that the applicant intends to adopt an infant under the law of or within the country in which he is domiciled."

27
I was wondering whether it was desirable for the court to be satisfied not merely of the intention to adopt but of the likelihood of such adoption being accomplished, and whether full consideration has been given to the position that might arise if a provisional adoption order made in this country were not, in fact, followed by legal adoption in the country to which the infant was taken. I expect that that matter has been fully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and I think it is a difficult matter. I draw attention to it now only in order to mention one matter on which I think noble Lords in all parts of the House will desire to get as much reassurance as possible, when we consider these clauses in Committee.
The other matter which has been mentioned is the recommendation which was contained in paragraphs 201 and 202 of the Departmental Committee's Report. That is the one important point on which Her Majesty's Government did not follow the recommendation of the Departmental Committee. I am convinced that Her Majesty's Government were quite right in making the decision they did. I agree fully with that decision, and I was glad that it was also supported from the Liberal Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. There are three parties concerned in this recommendation; the child, the natural mother and the adopting parents. I believe that the change in the law recommended by the Committee would not have been in the interests of any of those three parties, and I believe, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government came to a right decision in proceeding as they did.
There is only one further matter on which I would say a word. I may here be pressing at an open door, because my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may be contemplating doing what I now suggest that he should in due course do. When the Bill now before the House has been carried into law, the law of adoption will be contained in the existing Adoption Act. 1950—in itself a consolidating measure—and in Part II of the present Bill. That will make it extremely difficult for any layman interested—and many laymen are interested—to find out what the law of adoption is. I very much hope that. when this Bill is on the Statute Book, my noble and learned friend contemplates a new consolidating Act from
28
which the law of adoption can be more readily ascertained. There is no greater authority on consolidation than my noble and learned friend, and if he tells me this is not practicable I should accept his word, but I should also be surprised. I hope that he will give us a word of hope in that respect. There is nothing more wish to say upon this Bill on Second Reading, though there are various matters which we shall no doubt carefully consider in Committee. I welcome the Bill and I thank Her Majesty's Government for it.
4.5 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting this Bill, which will be of the greatest service and will be one of the revolutionary changes in the treatment of children that have characterised the last half century, and particularly the last quarter century. For a long time, many years ago, I conducted a clinic in Southwark where we had examples of all the horrors to which child life could be exposed; and there were very many. I feel, therefore, all the more glad to be able to speak to-day, very briefly, as I shall, because it means that now the doorway has been opened to the rearing of healthy, well-proportioned and competent children fit to live in our civilisation and to contribute to it. There is nothing particularly valuable about any particular strain of people in this country. We are all very mixed, and one discovers. if one is a doctor, in a poor area or in a wealthy area, that there is a great deal of mixing of population in heredity, and that there is no special class difference one way or the other, except in so far as it is reflected in their upbringing, in the care which is given to them and in the assistance which is available to them to succeed in life.
This Bill is a very great step forward. I am very glad to find that we are going to pass the Bill—for I have no doubt that we shall. I believe that it will be of the greatest service; and I say that after a great number of years of experience in work in connection with children. Few things can do more good than to improve the condition of the upbringing of children. especially those who are likely to be neglected. In the early days of my work in, Southwark the neglected child, the dying child, the

29
rickety child, the malformed child, with very had rickets, almost unbelievable at the present time, was very common. Now it is very much less common; though it still exists; and there are many other evils which do exist.
I am, as I say, very glad to be here this afternoon and to listen to the speeches which have been made, because it means that there has been a complete revolution in the attitude of a great many people towards the care of children and their future. These children are part of the nation, and they should be given the chance to become fully equipped for life, to have all their faculties developed and to bring our civilisation some steps further. I do not wish to speak to-day on the details of the Bill. I think they are a matter for examination when it comes to the right stage for that purpose. but I feel that we might pride ourselves on dealing with this Bill to-day and look forward to the immense improvement that it is bound to bring to the children of the nation, especially those horn in the poorer ranks.
4.10 p.m.
The EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, as I was a foster parent "for reward" for some ten years of my life, ceasing in that capacity only some four years ago, I would venture to offer a few comments to your Lordships on Part I of this excellent Bill. The principal point that I would beg the noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack to consider is one of publicity. For many of the years during which I exercised my foster functions I was totally ignorant of the obligations which the law imposed, even at that epoch, upon foster parents, and I trust that the lapse of time will be held to have condoned my crime; but I did not, in fact, notify the authorities because I was entirely ignorant that such was my obligation.
This state of ignorance still exists. I came across a case of it the other day—good people who were taking charge of a baby under a most kindly arrangement with the parents. It was entirely proper, and there was nothing wrong about it at all: but they had not notified, and had net the least idea that it was their duty to notify, he local authority of what they were doing. Therefore, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to convey to the Home Secretary my urgent plea that
30
the means of publicity available to Her Majesty's Government should be exercised to make the provisions of this Bill, when it is enacted, better known. In this matter I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I would also support the noble Lord in his plea for consolidation. When the last Adoption Act was receiving its Third Reading in your Lordships' House I asked the Labour Government of the time for a consolidation of enactments, and that consolidation was granted. I feel justified in making the same request to-day.
There is a further point on which I fear that the provisions of this Bill will not be adequately known. I would remind your Lordships that it affects a great many parents who take foreign children for the period of summer holidays. As your Lordships are no doubt aware—certainly those who are parents will be aware—to-day it is a common thing for parents in France and England, or in Italy and England, or in other foreign countries and England to exchange their children for the purpose of enabling the children to learn a language. I have sent my children to France, and I have received foreign children, some of them under fifteen years of age, in my house, for the purpose of their learning the English language and English customs and ways. Sometimes this is done on an exchange basis, which would still, I think I am right in saying, come within the terms of fostering "for reward"; sometimes it is done on a simple monetary payment. I am a little concerned at the thought that all these numerous arrangements, if they endure for more than one month, as they commonly do, will be brought within this Act.
In the first place, I am not quite sure how one can make people realise that they have the duty of notification; and in the second place, I am not quite sure how local authority children's officers are going to cope with the rush of work which the Bill imposes. It will come principally during the summer, when we try to give our children's officers, who bear a case-load already heavy, a certain amount of time for holidays and when, therefore, the children's department is short-staffed. If we are now to have imposed upon us the duty of inspecting

31
the numerous homes to which foreign children are sent during the summer holidays, consideration will have to be given to how the necessary personnel is to be found. I am not quite certain whether the period of one month mentioned in the Bill might not be extended to two months. For the reasons which I have stated, I would ask for that point to be considered.
I would also draw attention to Clause 11 which requires a foster parent, on the death of a foster child, to notify the coroner or procurator fiscal. I know that at one time, when there was much baby fostering and much unsatisfactory fostering, when there was no adequate provision for the inspection of foster homes to which children were sent, and when there were few or no local authority officers to carry out that work, such a provision may have been most necessary and important: it may have helped to eliminate "baby farmers". But I would ask the noble and learned Viscount to consider, in conjunction with the Home Secretary and his advisers, whether it is strictly necessary to-day. Speaking as a foster parent, if I had had the great misfortune to lose my foster child, I think I should have felt this additional necessity somewhat keenly. I would ask for consideration of that point.
Finally, as I am a co-opted member of a children's committee, I feel that I should comment on the remarks that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Burden. There, I would ask that the House should preserve in this matter a sense of balance. I hope that all local authorities are well aware of the need to maintain a certain number, indeed, a considerable number, of empty places in their homes to provide for the emergency commitment of children. On the other hand, I am sure that the noble Lord will admit that it is most uneconomic and expensive for a local authority to maintain homes with a 50 per cent. occupancy or less. Yet unless a large number of free places are kept in local authority homes, there may be occasions on which overcrowding occurs.
One must remember that not infrequently a local authority is asked to take into its charge, quite quickly and suddenly, up to half a dozen children
32
from one family, the mother being suddenly taken ill and no other provision existing. If, as might well happen, and as does occasionally happen, several such children are brought into the care of the local authority, some degree of over-occupancy of homes is almost inevitable. In my experience, however, the over-occupancy is mitigated at the earliest possible moment, use being made of that very valuable class of citizen, the temporary foster parents, who are willing to receive foster children at very short notice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, who was perfectly justified in all he said (I have no quarrel with him upon that subject), will admit that this is a matter on which we must preserve a sense of reasonable balance and on which we cannot provide for every possible contingency that might—and occasionally does—arise.
4.21 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I believe that we in this country are entitled to feel a proper sense of pride and satisfaction at the progress which has been made over the past fifty years in the direction of promoting the protection and welfare of children. I think it can be fairly said that this policy has received the common consent of all informed persons of good will. This social policy is now paying some very handsome dividends—dividends which are continuous and growing; and I believe there is no limitation to such social dividends in respect of this corporate social activity. Thus it comes about. naturally, I feel, that this Bill has been warmly welcomed on all sides. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor may rest assured that no one in this House would wish in any way to impede its speedy and smooth passage on to the Statute Book.
As always, the noble and learned Viscount was clear and concise in his explanation of the provisions of the Bill which he properly said he trusted would be approached with sympathy but also critically; and it may well be that on the Committee stage, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Conesford, has suggested, there will be occasion to examine certain of its provisions and also to inquire whether some of the recommendations of the Hurst Committee which do not appear in the Bill are likely to be dealt with satisfactorily by rules

33
and regulations. There may he honest differences as to some provisions of the Bill and as regards the absence of some of the recommendations of the Hurst Committee; but I feel that we can be fairly satisfied that there will be no barren controversy but that there will be a desire on the part of all concerned to make the Bill as satisfactory in the interests of the children as it is possible so to do.
As the noble and learned Viscount has said, Part I of the Bill draws into one Act most, if not all, of the current legislation relating to foster children and their care and supervision. It also confers further powers of supervision and removes doubts as to the definition of a foster child which I believe arose from a court decision. Those doubts have generated doubts in the minds of those who have to work the provisions of the law as to the applicability of the regulations and the working code, both generally and. in particular as regards children in boarding schools.
Part I also confers additional powers and obligations on local authorities as well as obligations on persons proposing to maintain a foster child for the first time. In that respect the present period of seven days' notice is extended to fourteen days. Moreover, there is in the Bill an important provision which revises the grounds for the removal of a child from an unsuitable foster home. I gather from those concerned with the operation of this activity that the current provisions, although they are detailed and in some respects very far-reaching, are also in some respects virtually unworkable. It is hoped that the proposals in the Bill will greatly ease the workability of the regulations and provisions.
As the noble and learned Viscount clearly explained, Part II amends the Adoption Act, 1950, which is in itself a Consolidation Act. As several noble Lords have said, the provisions of the Bill are largely based on the Report of the Hurst Committee, and I should here like to join in the tribute which has been paid to that Committee. The Report, although voluminous, is an admirable document, full of comprehensive, penetrating and balanced judgments and wise recommendations. Parts I and II of the Bill deal with separate matters, but in one respect, at least, they overlap. Clause 3 of Part I and Clause 35 of Part II
34
overlap, and it is thought that, as a consequence, some confusion in application may arise. I should like to come back to that particular point a little later on.
All our legislation in connection with foster children or adopted children has insisted that the welfare of the child—his happiness and his future—must rank very high indeed in the priorities. I would myself go so far as to say, with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, notwithstanding the view expressed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that the interests of the child must be paramount, without question. This does not mean that we should disregard the foster parents or the charity of feeling and of kindness which they exhibit when they take on the responsibility of rearing and caring for the child of another. Nor must we disregard the rights and interests of the natural parents: that is to say, those natural parents who accept and discharge their responsibilities. They, too, have their feelings and their parental attributes and rights.
That brings me to the provision of the Bill dealing with the dispensing with the consent of the parents, a matter which is dealt with in Clause 18 (3). This has always been a difficult matter, as I understand. There have been changes either of provision or of emphasis in successive Acts, and there have been two High Court decisions, all of which have left the position and the rights of parents in an imprecise, if not a confused, state; and certainly the question has not in any way been free from doubt. The Hurst Committee themselves were much exercised in the matter and devoted several paragraphs of their Report to consideration of this vexed, and indeed vexatious, question.
At the present time, to enable the court to dispense in adoption applications with the consent of the parents they must have failed in the past and be likely to continue to fail in the future to discharge their parental responsibilities to the child, without due cause. Parents may show willingness to discharge their responsibilities at least by sending the child tokens of affection from time to time, by remembering him on his birthday or at Christmas. At present, an adoption order can normally be made only if the parents consent, but their consent may be dispensed with in certain prescribed

35
circumstances, which, under the present law, derive largely from case decisions in the High Court. A parent's consent cannot be dispensed with if he or she wishes to continue in parental relationship to the child, notwithstanding that the parent may previously have failed completely to provide for him. This occasions great difficulty and injustice, which may very well in certain circumstances amount to cruelty.
In Clause 18 (3) there are, if I may say so with every respect to the noble and learned Viscount, three indeterminates, all of which it appears have to be determined before the magistrates' court may come to a decision whether the consent of the parent can be dispensed with. There are the words "persistently failed"; and then "without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian of the infant"; and there is an additional requirement expressed in the words "and that the failure is likely to continue if the order is not made". This has given rise to considerable anxiety in the minds of those who have had experience of administering the law, in that fractious and neglectful parents may, as they do now, wait until the last moment before they indicate whether they will grant their consent or not. This waiting, as it were until the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute, is of importance by reason of the judgment given in one case, in which it was held that consent must be given at the time the adoption order is made and can be withdrawn up to the last moment before the order is made. That can occasion, as I have said, great difficulty and can seriously impair the proper workings of the provisions of the law and the regulations made thereunder.
It is correct that the clause carries out the recommendation of the Hurst Committee that the word "unreasonably" should not be used; but, as I have said, it brings into the clause the words "without reasonable cause". I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought it would be a little difficult to distinguish between doing something "unreasonable" and doing something "without reasonable cause"; but no doubt the noble and learned Viscount will assist me and other noble Lords to an understanding of the difference.
36
There is also considerable anxiety as to how the magistrates' courts are to construe the words "the failure is likely to continue". This clause seems to me to be so worded as to cast a heavy burden for decision on the court. We must bear in mind that the magistrates and the lay justices are not trained lawyers; they are capable, upright persons doing their duty as magistrates in the best possible way. And they will, I think (and in this I gather that quite a number of persons concerned in the administration of the law hold the same view) find that this clause provides almost a happy hunting ground for lawyers and others. The difficulties which will face the lay magistrates are perhaps likely to be increased by reason of the fact that there is conferred by Clause 21 a new right, or there will be a new right, of appeal from the decision of the magistrates' court as to dispensing with the consent of the parent.
There is anxiety that this clause, as presently drafted, may seriously prejudice the interests of the child, and in some cases the child's welfare may be sacrificed to a notional, unreal and unjustified refusal to consult by a thoroughly unworthy and neglectful parent. If the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could look into the wording of this clause and find means of clarifying it. I am sure that it would be greatly appreciated by those who will have to operate the new law.
Clause 30 widens the powers of local authorities in the case of a child for whose adoption an application has been made, even if the child is not in the statutory care of a local authority. This will remove another difficulty and uncertainty. The Bill also provides recognition of local authorities as full adoption agencies and quite properly imposes upon them the responsibilities and requirements which at present are imposed upon adoption societies. As I have said, Clause 3 extends the period of notice to local authorities from seven to fourteen days in cases where persons undertake the care of a child for reward—that is, foster parents. Clause 35 seeks to do the same for children to be adopted. Here occurs the overlap which is causing perturbation in the minds of those who will operate the law.
Clause 35 seeks to make Part I applicable to children placed for adoption by

37
third parties or in respect of whom a notice of intention to adopt has been given to a local authority. This involves the framing of Clause 35 on the basis of a complex series of exceptions to Part I—namely, by changing the definitions of foster child in Part I, "for reward" and the without-reward basis of placing, and removing certain clauses, subsections or parts thereof which are not relevant to a child placed for adoption—for example, subsections (2), (3) and (6) of Clause 35. In the result—this is the view expressed by those who will be concerned to operate the law—Clause 35 and Part I together become something in the nature of a legal maze. Adoption case workers who are normally untrained in legal complexities will find it extremely difficult to interpret the provisions for themselves or explain them in a simple way to parents, adopters or third parties without legal guidance. There is a feeling that this Clause 35 will prove unworkable in the day-to-day field work because of its complexities. Something much simpler and more direct, even it be longer, is required.
One suggestion has been put forward of a rather drastic character—namely, that the Bill should be re-cast as two separate Bills, one for the supervision and protection of foster children placed for reward apart from their parents, and the other to amend the Adoption Act, 1950, including its separate provisions for supervision of children placed for adoption by third parties and children about whom notices of intention to adopt have been made. How far that suggestion can be acted upon is not for me to say, but I think that we should all agree that when it is a case of social legislation affecting intimate and intensely human and personal matters such as adoption, the law should be clear and simple and easily understandable to the laymen who have to administer it.
Moreover, third parties are sometimes difficult persons, who resent the intrusion of local authorities and authorised adoption societies and agencies and the imposition of their regulatory requirements. There is great apprehension that this clause may become a happy hunting ground for what are graphically described as "sea lawyers". I am sure that if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could look into the question of simplifying in one way or another the
38
provisions of Clause 35 in relation to Clause 3, those concerned with the administration of the law would be very grateful.
I come now to Clause 23, which deals with the adoption of children by people domiciled in this country. This restores the position, generally speaking, to what it was before the decision of Mr. Justice Harman in 1951, and accordingly there can be no objection in principle if proper and adequate safeguards are maintained. But Clause 24, as the noble and learned Viscount said, goes much further. It intends to permit people, whether British or not, who are domiciled in this country to get a provisional adoption order, which would give them the custody of a child whilst in this country and authority to take the child abroad for adoption elsewhere. It is true that it carries a safeguard that an applicant must satisfy all the normal adoption requirements apart from domicile, but this clause goes a long way. While it may in operation ease the situation which exists as regards certain groups of people—namely, where there are more children than persons willing to adopt them—nevertheless, it contains serious consequential dangers. For instance, one would like to inquire as to what regard will be paid to the general protective laws as to children in the countries into which they are to be taken: whether there is any restriction upon the age at which they can be set to work, and what are the provisions in regard to their education and other requirements which we now regard as being normal for the protection of children in this country.
After all, the standard of living and the level of civilisation in the countries to which the children may be taken is an important factor in the making for or making against the interests of the child. I can appreciate one of the points brought up in support of this proposal: that it would resolve difficulties which are being met in regard to coloured persons in this country who would wish to adopt a coloured child. We do not know, but we all hope that there will come a time—though we always welcome citizens of the United States, whether they be coloured or otherwise—when the reasons why there are so many here in this country as our guests may no longer prevail, and that, therefore, the

39
number will be much less. At any rate, if this proposal is to be part of the Bill, it seems that the strictest safeguards will have to be devised.
Then the question arises as to how far, whatever safeguards may be devised, we can effectually enforce them in a foreign country to which the child has been taken and a citizen of which country the child may well become. I know that persons concerned with the administration of the law are much exercised in their minds whether this may not endanger the future of the child; whether a child should be adopted and taken abroad, especially to a non-English-speaking country, where the way of life and the allegiances are in many cases fundamentally different from those of the parents and from those prevailing in this country.
I should like to conclude with a word or two in regard to the absence of any provision in the Bill implementing the recommendation of the Hurst Committee that an adopted child should, when he reaches the age of twenty-one, have the right to know of his natural parents and other circumstances with regard to himself. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Silkin. I admit at once that this is a matter of balance and poise of considerations. We must seek to avoid being doctrinaire about it. There can be advantages in conferring this right upon an adopted child; there can also be disadvantages, both for the adopted child and for his natural parents, as well as for the adopting parents. I feel that one must be completely convinced, without peradventure of doubt or mistake, that the advantages likely to flow from conferring this right will outweigh the risks which it will inescapably involve. No doubt in some cases—maybe in many cases—it would be all right and to the advantage of the adopted child and the other parties; but in many other cases the consequences might well be almost calamitous for the child himself, for the adopters and for the natural parents, or for any one of them. The happiness and the peace of mind of these other persons may be seriously disturbed.
We must remember that years will have passed since the adoption of the child, and the circumstances of the
40
natural parents or parent may have changed completely. The mother may have married or re-married and may have had a family: all sorts of complications, embarrassments, hardships and sorrows might be occasioned. I think it is not putting it too high to say that in quite a number of cases there would be the danger that a happy home might well be shattered. In those circumstances, notwithstanding that the law in Scotland entitles the adopted child to have this information when he reaches the age of seventeen, I think the question must be decided by the dictates of reason and calm judgment rather than by an understandable feeling of sentiment and perhaps emotion. On balance, I think the Government are right in not acting on this recommendation of the Hurst Committee, and in the end I think the advantages will lie in not applying that recommendation.
There are other points, as I have already indicated, that I shall wish to make on the proper stages of the further consideration of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack indicated that some of the recommendations of the Hurst Committee will be dealt with in the rules and regulations which are to be promulgated. Suffice it to say this evening that I, with others, warmly welcome this Bill, and wish it a smooth passage to the Statute Book, amended as may be thought wise and proper.
5.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think that anyone who has had the honour to put a Bill before your Lordships' House could have less reason than I to complain of the reception it received. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I shall do my best to deal with the points that they have raised. If there are any others with which I am unable to deal, I hope that the opportunity will arise either of writing to the noble Lords concerned or of discussing the point in Committee.
If I may take one general point, I was most interested that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, should revert to that passage in Professor Kennan's lectures. In doing so, he has brought a dangerous possible duty on himself, because, if your Lordships will allow me to say so. I

41
gave a lecture in Toronto University in January which turned on the subject of the highest common factor of international relations. I also was inspired by that passage in Professor Kennan's lectures in which he underlined the importance in foreign affairs of removing suspicions which Communist Powers might have of us. I ventured to develop in my lecture the point that the rule of law and the English Common Law, which we had applied not only to ourselves but to every other country, showed the emphasis which we placed on conduct and was some answer to any suspicion that might arise. Therefore, I was most interested that the noble Lord should have pursued the same line of thought with regard to the treatment of the under-privileged and those who constitute the casualties of life. I am most grateful for what he said, and I join with him in the thanks he expressed for all those who work with and for children. The danger is that, after what he said, I might feel justified in sending him a copy of my lectures, when they are published, and that he might feel he had to read them.
On the second point, which the noble Lord raised, the issue of a document of some sort indicating which parts of the Hurst Committee's Report we had put into operation and which parts not, and why, as he will appreciate these questions are easier to pose than to answer shortly, because in some cases it is necessary to explain why there is a slightly different slant. However, I am anxious to help, and I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider it helpful if I tried to get prepared an informal document—not a White Paper, which has all the pomposity of a State document—which I could circulate to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to any other noble Lords who write to ask me for it. I do not say that it will do everything for which the noble Lord has asked, but it will be an attempt to help in that direction. I will certainly do that, and it will be as full as I can make it. I hope the noble Lord feels that that answers the spirit of his point.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I say I am sure that it does, and I am grateful for the offer, which I at once accept. I am sure that every noble Lord who has spoken will do the same.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The next point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised was one which I stated would be a matter of controversy, as indeed it is; and that is the right of adopted persons to know, as a right, when they get to twenty-one, who their natural parents are. The point has been discussed in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, put the contrary view a few moments ago; therefore, I shall not develop it at any length. I have tried, in forming my own view, to follow the line which my noble friend Lord Conesford indicated; that is, to look at the problem from the three points of view—the view of the adopted child himself, the view of the natural parents and the view of the adopting parents.
As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, it is the first that produces the most difficulty. I have read the letters, as I am sure he has, that have appeared from the adopted children on this point, and I have been struck, as he was, by the desire for a respect for their own human individuality which the writers of these letters expressed. But the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was good enough to agree with me in saying that adoption has become part of our social action and gained a place in the community. In these circumstances, it is difficult to apply the same tests for human rights as one would do if adoption did not exist, because almost prospectively the person who is adopted must take society as it exists with adoption, and accept what makes adoption work best. I have tried to put the matter as reasonably as I can. because I was anxious to meet that point of view and it is a subject to which. as one who is mainly responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights. I have given great attention in the past.
From the point of view of the natural parents, I find the greatest difficulty in seeing the answer to these troubles, with which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has just dealt. At the time of which he speaks the years may have passed, and an entirely different situation and entirely different relationships may obtain. With regard to the adopting parents, the balance of what has been put before me is that the clean break, in the absence of contesting loyalties, would not only make

43
their task easier but would prevent an undermining of a position which years of trust and affection have built up or, what is almost as bad, the fear that the position has been undermined. Therefore, when these views are coupled with the advice that we received from adoption societies, I felt that we had taken the right course. I have repeated these arguments briefly only in order to show Lord Silkin, whose view I value so much, that the matter received grave consideration before we formed this view.
My noble friend Lord Gorell, who told me that he has had to go to an important engagement, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, both dealt with the question of the representation of third parties. That matter can be dealt with by rule. I cannot give any undertaking at the moment as to whether it will be in the rules, because I should like to consider the point they have made and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I should like them to know that the matter is not ruled out, and they will, of course, have an opportunity, should the decision of my right honourable friend not be palatable to them, of raising later the question of the rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asked me about Clause 25, subsection (2), and I should like, if he will bear with me, just to explain what, in my view, it does. It makes clear what names the court is to direct the Registrar-General to enter in the Adopted Children Registers in compliance with Section 18 (1) of the principal Act, the Act of 1950, which relates to England, and Section 20 (1), which relates to Scotland. This is a point which I hope will remove Lord Amulree's doubts. The names to be entered are the name or names and surname stated in that behalf in the application in the adoption order, and no other names. If no name and surname are stated in the application, the original name or names of the infant and the surname of the applicant are to be entered. Those provisions remove the difficulties (which the noble Lord will find mentioned in paragraph 206 and 207 of the Hurst Committee's Report) which have arisen when courts have felt themselves obliged to record in the adoption order an infant's original name or names
44
or the surname of the applicant, even when that was not desired; and they remove also the Scottish difficulty which is mentioned in paragraph 209. So I think the provision is one in favour of, and not against, the view that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree was expressing. That is my view at the moment. However, I will consider it again, and if the noble Lord has any doubts perhaps he will raise the matter in Committee; or, if he sends me a note, I will deal with it when that clause comes before the Committee of the whole House.
LORD AMULREE: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation. I think it does set my mind at rest on that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, as he is perfectly entitled to do on Second Reading, dealt not only with the Bill, to which he was most kind, but with certain matters which he was well aware were not in the Bill. I think he will agree that it is fair to answer him in this way. I will bring his points to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I am sure he will consider them. They are most important ones, although they are not in this Bill. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Burden, in the tribute he paid, despite his doubts, to the work of the children's officers. I think that was an admirable office to create. I had the great pleasure once of dining with Dame Myra Curtis, so I know personally not only what they do but the sort of people they are, and I willingly join with the noble Lord in his praise. I hope he will be content if I say that I will convey his points to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
My noble friend Lord Conesford raiesd an interesting point on the foreign adopter aspect, on the question whether there should also be a provision as to the likelihood of adoption. I certainly thought that would be a matter that the courts would consider, the objective as well as the subjective aspect; but I will look into it again, and here again I will let him know what view we form. I do give him a word of hope on consolidation.

45
The, noble Lord, Lord Latham, raised the question of whether there should not be two Bills. If the noble Lord had to fight for places in the legislative programme he would, I think, on balance be very pleased that he had got one Bill, even if it has two Parts. I was grateful to have the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, and I was interested in the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, because the question of publicity, which was his first point, was very much in my mind. I raised it with those who were advising me, because I think it extremely important, if that part of Part I is to work, that we should try to ensure that the local authorities do their utmost to bring this matter to the attention of all foster parents. I am told that in the cases to which the original legislation was mainly directly, and in the cases where we want to ensure that there is no danger of "baby farming" in the old way, the difficulty will not arise so much, because the children are known to various officials of the local authority. I assure the noble Earl, however, that that point is in our minds.
With regard to the question he raised about foreign children who come for the holidays and the like, I drew attention, when was moving the Second Reading, to the provision for exemptions. I should have thought that if the person who was going to have a foreign child with him dropped a line to the local authority to explain what was going to happen, there would not be any difficulty in getting the exemptions. It is always troublesome when one introduces another regulation into our intensely complicated life. I think I have the story right; it is Wee Willie Winkle, one of Kipling's early stories, which shows how, even in the best regulated sending to somebody else of a child, the most awful things can occur; and the awful effect they may have on the child's mind.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I think it was Baa, Baa, Black Sheep.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had a feeling I was wrong: I knew that I was back in the nursery rhyme field, but I had the wrong one. I am very grateful to the noble Earl. However, it shows the need which justifies the regulations here.
46
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, answered my request in full measure, and gave us a full and critical examination of the Bill, for which I am very grateful. I shall consider carefully all the points he raised. A number of them were legal points, and I am not going to go into them at great length to-clay, though I should very much like to—it is a great temptation to a lawyer. I did not think that the juxtaposition or the non-juxtaposition of Clauses 23 and 25 caused the difficulty, but I think Lord Latham feels that we could, with a further effort, find easier protection for the child to be adopted or waiting for adoption. I will of course, look into that point with pleasure. We have done our best at the moment and I will consider his criticisms on that point.
LORD LATHAM: If I may say so, that is Clause 35.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. I think the noble Lord will agree that we had to find some protection for the child waiting for adoption. We have taken the protection from the first Part of the Bill, and the noble Lord finds that that has a complicated result. Of course I will look at it.
LORD LATHAM: I am much obliged.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to Clause 18 (3), I think the noble Lord was afraid it would mean that the undeserving parent would be able to throw a spanner in the works. Again, of course, I will look at the point, should like him to consider this thought—and perhaps he will be good enough to discuss it with those who are advising him on the legal position. The three tests are all tests of fact. The first one is that the parent or guardian has "persistently failed" to carry out his obligations. "Persistent" is a well-known word which has been construed many times; I do not think it should present any difficulty. But it is essentially a question of fact whether the person "persistently failed…to discharge the obligations of a parent." When the courts have considered that, and if they find as a matter of fact that he has persistently failed, then they have to consider the second point—whether he failed "without reasonable cause." Again, Lord Latham will take it from me that "reasonable cause" is a well-known legal

47
term; it postulates that there must be an existing cause, and that it is a cause which provides a reasonable excuse for failure.
I think that one answer to his difficulty is that if a person says, "I have failed; I have failed more than once; I have failed persistently. I had a reasonable cause; I had 'T.B.'; I was in great trouble with some other children, "or something like that; or my wife was very ill," that is the sort of thing that might be regarded as a reasonable excuse. It is a matter for the court; it is a question of fact, and it is a well-known phrase.
LORD LATHAM: I think that the lay magistrate will find it difficult to distinguish between without reasonable cause "and unreasonable."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the difference is this. An unreasonable persistent failure is, both as a matter of English and of thought, rather difficult to contemplate. But perhaps the noble Lord would take it in two steps: that you first of all, as you must do, find that there has been a persistent failure to discharge the duties of a parent, and then ask yourself: Was there any cause for his failure? He says what the cause was, and you then consider whether it constituted a reasonable excuse for the failure. Again, I will look at the point, but I do not myself—largely because I have been brought up with the term "reasonable cause," though I must not allow that to blind my eyes to other people's difficulties—quite see the difficulty.
LORD LATHAM: I am most grateful, but I almost feel that the noble and learned Viscount has in his own argument made my case: that a lay magistrate will have the greatest difficulty in interpreting this clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, I do not like to claim too much, but he might even read my speech—though perhaps that is too much to ask.
The other point is on the words "likely to continue". That again is a matter that
48
can be answered only by estimating the mental state of the parent. I am fortified by the phrase of a noble Lord in this House, sitting judicially, that the state of a man's mind is as much a question of fact as the state of his digestion. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, on this point is that magistrates must take a common-sense view and apply their own forecast of what the parent is likely to do in the future. I do not think that the parent with whom the noble Lord wanted to deal will get away from it.
My Lords, I am afraid that I have taken a long time, but your Lordships raised a number of points, and I have tried to answer them. There is just one point which I think is most important—it was raised first by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. They said that they would both be inclined to go further than I have gone, and would say that the welfare of the child should be paramount. May I just put the difficulty there? Nobody would deny that it should rank high—I said myself that it should rank very high—but I suggest that one cannot make it paramount, otherwise the result might be (I take an obvious example) that poor parents might lose a child against their wishes because a wealthy couple wanted to adopt it. That would be quite contrary to the spirit in which any of us to-day has approached this problem. I take that illustration only to show why I made the limitation which I ventured to put before your Lordships in my earlier speech.
I again apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time, but the matter has not only aroused interest but produced interesting speeches to which I felt, out of respect for them, I ought to reply.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WATER BILL [H.L.]
5.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in moving that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill I should like to offer your Lordships an apology. I hope that by so doing I am not trespassing in advance on the ground that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, proposes to traverse on Thursday. My apology is this. Noble Lords who are particularly concerned with this Bill have complained hat Her Majesty's Government have not allowed sufficient time between the Second Reading and the Committee stage for them to consult with their friends in the country who are similarly interested. I apologise, and if I can I should like to make amends by promising here and now that we will allow plenty of time between the Committee and the Report stages to make up for our shortcomings at this stage of the Bill. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Obtaining supplies to meet drought
1.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied that by reason of an exceptional shortage of rain a serious deficiency of supplies of water in any locality exists or is threatened, he may, on the application of any statutory water undertakers who supply water in that locality, make an order containing such provisions for any of the following purposes as appear to him to be expedient with a view to meeting the deficiency, that is to say—

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

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

(i) the taking of water from any source,

(ii) the discharge of compensation water, or

(iii) the filtration or other treatment of water.

50
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.
EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved, in subsection (1) after "locality" to insert: "and after consultation with the appropriate river board". The noble Earl said: I believe it would be proper if at the outset I declare an interest. I have for many years been a director of one of the great statutory companies—the Bristol Water Works Company—and I declare that interest. I think it is inconceivable that there is any direct financial gain to me or them. I would preface my remarks on this particular Amendment by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for having stated, as he has, the difficulty in which some of us have been put owing to the shortage of time. It is obvious that on a technical Bill of this kind noble Lords who have to move Amendments and will want to speak on the Committee stage must consult with associations, boards and groups of people and there has been all too little time to do that. If, therefore, any of these Amendments which I shall propose are not perfect or not in the form in which they should be, that, although it is not an excuse, is the reason.
Noble Lords will see that I have a number of Amendments down in my name, and perhaps it would be wise if, in moving this first Amendment, I said that they really all follow a theme, and that the general theme is that river boards are not receiving, and in this Bill have not received, the mention or attention to which their importance and the statutory duties with which they are charged entitle them. After all, river boards are young bodies. They were born (if that is the correct term) only in 1948 and it may conceivably be that some Parliamentary draftsmen have not yet become fully aware of their existence and have, as it were, "dragged them in" at the end of a clause in a manner which is not commensurate with their dignity or what they have to do.

51
River boards are charged with statuory duties in connection with fisheries and pollution. The "clean river" policy, so obviously the right one, is now universally acknowledged to be the wise policy for our rivers, and I consider it to be of paramount importance under that policy that if the duties that fall upon river boards are properly to be carried out, they must be consulted when matters vitally affecting their rivers are proposed. We all know that the point and object of this Bill is to replace Defence Regulations by statutory powers, and in doing so we must be very careful that the new Statute is really complete and covers all the points it should.
I believe it is clearly desirable that before the Minister makes orders he should consult the appropriate river board with a view to obtaining their assistance in considering how water for domestic supplies can best be made available while restricting to a minimum the damage to the interests of that river board. In this connection I would point out that under Clause 1 (5) of the Bill the Minister has to
"have regard to the interests of all persons concerned in the conservation or use of the water to which the Order relates."
Among those interests are fisheries. As it is the river boards who are concerned with fisheries, I submit that subsection (5) concedes the principle that the interests of river boards have to be taken into account. In these circumstances I consider that to enable the Minister to be fully aware of all the competing factors involved, he should be under a duty to consult the river boards concerned before making an order. Therefore I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after ("locality") insert ("and after consultation with the appropriate river hoard").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD BURDEN: May I say a word or two in support of the case so admirably put by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave? For some years I had the opportunity of serving on a catchment board which under the River Boards Act was merged in the new setup. No one who has had experience of the work of the river boards can have failed to be impressed, first, by the
52
many hours of devoted service which members of those boards give to their work—service which receives little if any publicity and is in a very large measure its own reward; and secondly, by the fine staff of technical officers which the river boards have built up in connection with this work.
As the noble Earl has pointed out, the river boards ask only to be consulted in this matter. They recognise that the last word must be with the Minister; but surely, as their men are on the spot and know the problems arising in regard to pollution, trouble with fish and so on, and in view of the fact that they are the pollution and fisheries authority, it is not really asking too much that, prior to an order being made, the appropriate river board should be consulted, so that the Ministry may have the fullest possible information from the men on the ground. Please let us not have the argument that the "gentleman in Whitehall" really knows best. We have had that thrown at us from the other side many times. Now I throw it back to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in the hope that he will give us the case for which we are asking.
LORD SALTOUN: I have spoken to your Lordships so often on the subject of pollution that I do not need to weary you again this afternoon. I wish only to say that I support this Amendment and Amendment No. 4 to be moved by the noble Earl.
LORD MANCROFT: The main effect of the Amendment will be to require my right honourable friend before making any order to consult with the appropriate river board. I would not for a moment detract from the power, efficiency or worth of the river boards, but I believe that this Amendment goes too wide. There will be some orders with which river boards need not be concerned at all—orders about filtration or other treatment of water or authorised abstractions from lakes, ponds and disused gravel pits which do not connect with a river. In so far as a river board are directly concerned with an order (and this may have escaped the memory of one or two noble Lords) they are already protected by the procedure in the First Schedule, which entitles them to receive notice and to make objections. It is desirable that their representations should be considered by

53
the Minister together with those of other objectors, and it would be both unnecessary and time wasting to require that the Minister should consult them separately. I cannot, therefore, I am afraid, accept: his Amendment.
Some noble Lords have repeated arguments which were put forward on Second Reading about why at least statutory water undertakers should consult the river board before applying for an order. Water undertakers who rely on river abstractions for their supplies are normally, I think the Committee will agree, in close touch with the appropriate river board, and they may be expected to consult as a matter of course when a drought is threatened. After all, drought is the thing which we are talking about throughout this Bill. I believe I can give the noble Earl some comfort. 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. I think in point of fact that will meet all the points which the noble Earl has made and will get over the difficulty of this Amendment, which would go far too widely. I see what the noble Earl is trying to do and I think that if he will accept that undertaking it will meet his difficulty completely.
LORD BURDEN: I hope we are not going to step off on the wrong foot again in regard to this Bill, which is essentially a non-Party Bill, with a stonewalling from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Please do not put these river boards simply in the position of objecting after they hear that an order is to be made. That is the essential point of the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has put to us they will have the opportunity of objecting. Surely an appropriate, responsible authority is entitled to more consideration than that from the Ministry in regard to matters which are of vital importance to it. But if the noble Lord will consider putting down an Amendment on Report stage which will give the river board the opportunity of being consulted when there is an order which is of vital importance so far as the work of the river board is concerned, then I am sure the noble Earl will look at the matter again.
54
He will speak for himself; but I personally am not content simply to have this stonewalling on an Amendment right at the beginning of the Committee stage, without any offer of co-operation at all from the noble Lord.
LORD MANCROFT: And I am not content to be accused of stonewalling. I went to considerable lengths to tell my noble friend who is behind me that I would try to meet his point in a way that would meet with his complete satisfaction. If the noble Lord thinks that that is stonewalling, I can only think that he will be in for a shock later in his political career when he sees what stonewalling can be if we set our minds to it. I have offered my noble friend an attempt, by means of the advice we propose to send out, to meet his point completely. I told him. I hope in as conciliatory a way as I could, that the method he proposed for dealing with this matter is not the right way. I suggested an alternative way which I think will meet his point completely; and the noble Lord opposite has accused me of stonewalling. I will not accept that; but I hope that my noble friend Earl Waldegrave will accept the offer I made him.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I do not want to get involved in these very high-level matters, and I must tell the noble Lord opposite that I shall be happy to withdraw this Amendment on the assurance my noble friend has given me. If my Amendment went too far, he may also perhaps be justly accused of going a little too far in his rebuttal of it. He said that the Amendment went too far when it asked for river boards to be consulted in every case. My whole object this afternoon is to try to get the river boards on all fours with, and on the same basis as, local authorities. It must be that often local authorities are to have statutory notice given to them when they are not actually going to have anything to do with a particular case. They will have consultation and notice, and I should have liked the river boards to be on all fours with them. But after the assurance which has been given by the noble Lord I shall not press this Amendment at the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw
5.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONmoved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) Undertakers who execute works in pursuance of an order made under this section shall remove all such works immediately after the expiration of the period laid dawn in the order under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of this section or where the period is extended by an order made under subsection (3) of section four of this Act, immediately after the end of the period as so extended and if the undertakers fail to remove all the works within a period of fourteen days after the expiration of the said period, or the said period as so extended, they shall, without prejudice to their civil liability, if any, to a person aggrieved, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds in respect of each day on which the offence has been committed or is continued:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the owner and lessee or occupier of any land in on or over which works are executed agrees in writing to the works remaining in on or over that land."
The noble Viscount said: Before I develop my argument on this Amendment, I should like to apologise in advance for any errors in procedure into which I may fall, and to seek the indulgence of the Committee, which I know they are always ready to give to those who speak here for the first time. I should like also to apologise to the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, because I could not be here for the Second Reading of this Bill; but I have studied the Bill and the discussion on Second Reading, and I fully understand the view of Her Majesty's Government about the scope of the Bill. Lastly, I ought also to declare an interest as Chairman of the Port of London Authority, which, along with other port authorities, is of course very much concerned with the possible repercussions of orders made under the Bill.
May I first make a general observation which has some relevance to the various Amendments which I have put down? It seems to me that when we are converting emergency powers into permanent statutory powers, as the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has said, we should take great care and seize the opportunity to examine very carefully the scope of the powers which we are proposing to give to the Minister, and consider whether it would be wise to introduce some checks upon those powers or to circumscribe them in some other way. It is in that spirit that I have
56
drafted (with a good deal of assistance, because I am not much of an expert at it) the Amendments I have put down.
This Amendment, No. 2, is aimed, as your Lordships will see, at only one thing: to ensure that temporary works which are executed to meet an emergency are removed after the period of the emergency has passed. Under subsection (3) of this clause an order may authorise works to be executed; but although the order authorises emergency measures for a period of only up to six months, which can be then extended by a further order to twelve months, nothing is said about removing the works. I fully appreciate that in many cases the works will be inherently of a temporary nature, portable pumps and so on, which would naturally be removed when the emergency was over. But I should think there must also be cases where the works are of a more permanent nature, involving brickwork Or masonry, culverts, bridges and the like; and it seems to me that in that case the Committee ought to consider whether it is not right to have some provision for those works to be removed.
Of course, it may be in some cases that the owners or occupiers of the land will be well content to leave these more Or less permanent works where they are—I will not say against another emergency, because, clearly, if another emergency of the same kind is anticipated that would take the case rather outside this Bill and bring it to something under which the water undertakers should exercise their ordinary powers. But, for instance, it might be that it would create more disturbance to the land to remove the works than to leave them. In that case owners or occupiers may, be very willing that they should be left, and a proviso to that effect has been included in the Amendment.
There surely will still remain cases where undertakers ought to remove works, and that is the whole object of this clause. When I consulted the friends who helped me with the drafting, I was sorry to find that we had created a new offence, because I think that that was something none of us liked to do. At the time we could not see how else we could make the removal of these works effective compulsorily. It has occurred to me since that perhaps it could be done by giving to the owners or occupiers the

57
right, when the emergency was over and if the works were not removed, to remove them themselves and recover the costs front the water undertaker. Then we should not create an offence or introduce any system of fines
It has been suggested that there is no reason for putting this clause in the Bill, because the requirement to remove works that have been erected for an emergency could be written into the order in appropriate cases. We have tried carefully to see how that can be done, and I must confess that we really cannot see it. The first idea is to bring it within the words coming at the end of Clause 1 (1):
"…the Minister may include in the order such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as appear to him to be expedient for those purposes."
I cannot see how an order to remove works at the end of an emergency can be expedient for the purpose of either abstracting water or suspending or modifying specified conditions, and it seems to me that an order that included such a provision might well be challenged.
I thought that perhaps it could be brought into subsection (3) (a), which provides that an order
"may authorise the undertakers for that purpose to enter upon any specified land and to occupy and use the land to such extent and in such manner as may be requisite for the execution and maintenance of the works."
Again I am defeated, because once the emergency has expired undertakers will have no further right to enter upon occupied or used land and maintain works, but there is nothing that says that they have to remove them. If it is the intention that in all appropriate cases the undertaker should be required to remove works, then I suggest that the way to do it is to make that perfectly clear in the wording of the Bill, by accepting either this Amendment or some other appropriate Amendment that will have the same effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After subsection (3) insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD SALTOUN: My first and pleasing task is to congratulate the noble Viscount upon his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. No man is really willing to hold a candle to the sun, and that would be my position with regard to the noble Viscount, whose clear lucidity must
58
remind your Lordships forcibly of his noble father. I hope that the Government will be able to accept, if not this Amendment then a modified Amendment, because I can imagine nothing more hard to bear than the long continued presence of works that are no longer necessary and interfere with a man's own enjoyment of his property.
5.55 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I should like to add my congratulations to those of Lord Saltoun to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on his maiden speech. It is a particularly pleasant duty to me. I think that the noble Viscount knows of my great affection and respect for his noble father, who actually proposed my health at my wedding. The noble Viscount brings not only a distinguished name but also a distinguished office to our deliberations, and I hope that we shall hear from him on many future occasions, not always on a subject so specialised and recherché as that which we are now discussing.
I wish that I were able wholeheartedly to accept the first Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved in your Lordships' House. I can go some way—in fact, a long way—to meet him, but we cannot accept this Amendment; and I think he has guessed why. I do not like the creation of this new and important offence. I would suggest to the noble Viscount that in the great majority of cases the removal of works is most unlikely to be a real or practical difficulty. Experience of what has been done under the Defence Regulations since the war (and this matter has been looked at fairly carefully), shows that the most likely use of these powers will be to authorise pumps and other plant to be taken on to land. Very little, if any, constructional work will need to be carried out, and I imagine that the undertakers will be only too keen to remove their plant when the need for it to be kept there has come to an end. But if, in a particular case, more elaborate works are to be carried out, it is preferable that precise terms of the removal conditions should be considered by the Minister and then embodied in the order. I think that that is the right way to do it.
The noble Viscount doubts whether we can do it in that way. It is open to question, but I am advised that it can

59
be done, as he suggested, under the power in Clause 1 (1) to include in an order "supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions". A similar discretionary power was found to be satisfactory in the Water Supplies Act. 1934, and at the moment my right honourable friend does not see the need to include a mandatory provision in the Bill. What I can do, therefore, is to give the noble Viscount the undertaking that we will include removal conditions in any order where they are shown to be desirable.
The noble Viscount has raised the question of whether the power to make supplementary provisions is wide enough to include removal conditions. I am advised that the Bill as drafted is adequate for the purpose, but if the noble Viscount is not happy about this point I will give him the further undertaking to look at the wording again before Report stage to make certain that I am right. I see exactly what he wants to do, and I think that on the whole the way I am suggesting will achieve his object in a tidier and less ponderous manner than by creating the offence which he has included in his draft. I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment on my giving him this double undertaking: first, that we will include removal conditions in any order where they are shown to be desirable; and secondly, that we will have another look at the wording to make certain that we are right and that what the noble Viscount wants can, in point of fact, be done.
LORD SALTOUN: The noble Lord has referred to the war. One has heard cases of people setting up business with abandoned equipment left by undertakers and collected after the war, and his illustration really does not bear out his argument. I think that the noble Lord might consider that.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am happy to accept the undertakings which the noble Lord has given me in regard to this matter. I am particularly glad that he will examine carefully the wording to make certain that supplementary provisions which provide for the removal of works cannot be challenged as not coming within the clause. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONmoved to add to subsection (5):
"and shall not authorise the undertakers to enter upon or to occupy any operational land of a navigation authority unless the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation certifies that such entry or occupation will not interfere with the efficient carrying on of the undertaking of the navigation authority."
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that entry upon, or occupation of, operational land of a navigation authority shall be made only on the issue of a certificate from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (who, of course, is the Minister concerned with our ports) certifying that the efficient carrying on of the port will not be prejudiced.
I can quite see that this is a difficult Amendment for the noble Lord to accept. I admit that under the provisions of the Bill notice has to be given by the undertaker and that a navigation authority has the same right as anybody else to raise objection. I equally see that the Minister is bound to have regard to the interests of all the parties. But it seems to me that the efficient working of our ports is so vital that we must be careful about the exercise of these powers; and I suggest that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and his advisers, who are in close touch with the problems of the ports, are in a much better position to judge of what would adversely affect them than the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his advisers. No delay need be incurred under this procedure, because the appropriate certificate could easily be obtained within the period of notice of seven days. What I am asking for seems to me really a minimum safeguard.
I should like to call the attention of the Committee to Section 93 of the Water Act, 1935, in which, in not entirely dissimilar circumstances, protection is given to navigation authorities, to river boards and to the railway companies (I presume that that now means the British Transport Commission), and works which interfere with them may not be undertaken without their consent. I am not asking for as much as that: all I ask is that in a matter of this great importance—namely, the continued efficient operation of our ports—the decision as to whether or not this is prejudiced by any

61
proposal should rest with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.
I am not aware whether or not this is a unique provision, but it will not be a unique provision if Her Majesty's Government successfully pilot through Parliament the Opencast Coal Bill, because in that Bill, in admittedly different but, I think, analogous circumstances, the Minister of Power cannot make a compulsory purchase order affecting land occupied by various statutory authorities without a certificate from the appropriate Minister; and in the case of ports, as I say, the appropriate Minister is the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I am sure that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will, as he is bound to do, pay proper regard to the interests of all concerned and weigh them carefully; but is he really in a position to assess the effect of interference on the operations of a navigation authority? Would it not be better, in a matter of this great importance, that the responsibility should be laid on the Minister who is most familiar with the problems of our ports? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD MANCROFT: As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, foretold, I am not in a position to accept this Amendment in the way he has drafted it. I am afraid that it goes a good deal further than we should be able to accept. I see his difficulty, however, and I am in agreement with some of the fears he expresses. Let me see if I can meet any of them. The operational land with which we are concerned is land held by the authority for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking. It is unlikely, I should have thought, that the water undertakers would want to enter on to such land; but if they did, they would have to give notice to the navigation authority under the procedure for making the orders which is set out in the First Schedule to the Bill. The authority would then have the right to be heard by the Minister, and any necessary restrictions on entry could be embodied in the order, or the order could be amended or rejected.
This is as far as I can go. I will now give the noble Viscount my assurance
62
that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will always consult the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation before reaching a decision which affects a navigation authority. I think, therefore, it is unnecessary to have a provision in the Bill requiring one Minister to get another Minister's consent. Moreover (though I should like to take legal advice on this point: I was listening carefully to what my noble friend said), I believe not only that it is unnecessary, but that, in the circumstances, it would be unconstitutional to put into the Bill what my noble friend wants. I cannot believe that any noble Lord bearing the name of Simon would like anything unconstitutional to go into a Bill. However, I take my noble friend's point. I think the procedure I am suggesting will meet it completely, and I hope he will accept the suggestions I have made.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has to meet me on what I agree was a rather hopeless task. I am interested to hear what he said about the unconstitutional nature of what is proposed. I seem to remember a story about the sovereignty of Parliament. But there is also, as I think, the analogous case in the Opencast Coal Bill. However, I do not propose to pursue the question. I am satisfied that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will be consulted in all these cases. I should have preferred, in a matter of such importance, that that Minister could have the last word, but I have no doubt that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will pay due regard to what the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation says. In those circumstances, I gladly accept that assurance and bag leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.7 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVEmoved to add to subsection (5): "(including in particular the prevention of pollution)." The noble Earl said: In Clause 1 (5) of the Bill certain interests are specified. The subsection says:
"In the exercise of his power to make orders under this section the Minster 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."

63
Your Lordships may think it splitting hairs if we say that one of the interests which we feel should be specified in this clause is the prevention of pollution. That is the statutory duty with which the river boards are charged, and for the life of me I cannot understand why it has not been included in this clause of the Bill. I believe that since 1955, when this Bill was first departmentally discussed, the river boards have pressed that this point should be included. I am sorry to say that when the Bill comes to be printed we find that those representations have not been listened to at all. I suggest that this Amendment could do no possible harm—indeed, it could do good. It is designed to ensure that this question of preventing pollution will and must be one of the matters to be taken into consideration by the Minister when he makes these emergency orders. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD BURDEN: I should like to support the case put by the noble Earl. Like many of your Lordships I have had the opportunity of reading a series of pamphlets issued some years ago by the Field Sports Society which gave a description of the horrifying and sickening conditions arising from pollution in a number of our rivers. Since then, to my own knowledge from a perusal of the reports of the River Boards Association, the river boards have been tackling, to the utmost of their ability but against tremendous odds, the problem of pollution from factories and other sources. Now we say to the Government: "Please, in a time of emergency, let pollution be one of the factors considered in connection with any order. Please, after these years of effort on the part of the river boards to bring about a better state of affairs in our rivers, so far as pollution is concerned, do not handicap them in their work, but realise the tremendous effort that they have been making and encourage them by accepting this Amendment." I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: The words of this Amendment which I particularly like are, "including in particular." I shall listen with fascinated attention to the noble
64
Lord, Lord Mancroft, to see whether he is able to give us the reasons why Her Majesty's Government do not wish to prevent pollution.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, will be disappointed to hear that I do not propose to fascinate him this evening. In other words, I hope that I shall give satisfaction by accepting this Amendment in principle, if not actually in form. It is not acceptable in its present form, but it touches on a point which I agree needs to be looked into. The reason for not accepting to-day is an entirely technical one. The prevention of pollution can hardly be said to be a purpose for which water is conserved or used. On the other hand, I agree that the taking of water out of the stream so as to reduce the flow may have an effect on the state of pollution of the stream, and is a matter to which the Minister ought to have regard when making an order. So far as the fishery interests of river boards are concerned, they are already covered by the clause as drafted. But I quite agree with my noble friend that it may be desirable to add a requirement that the Minister should also have regard to public health interests. 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.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: It would be most ungracious if I did other than at once withdraw this Amendment after the point that we tried to make has been so generously met by the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
6.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMONmoved, after subsection 8, to insert:
"(9) The Minister shall not make an order under this section to amend the provisions of section one hundred and sixty-two of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932 (which gives the Metropolitan Water Board power to extract water from the Thames subject to certain restrictions) or of any Act or order for the time being in force amending the same."
The noble Viscount said: This is a different type of Amendment. I think the purpose of it is quite plain—to leave undisturbed the present arrangements which govern the extraction of water from

65
the River Thames by the Metropolitan Water Board. I realise that it is difficult in a Public Act of this kind to make a specific exception, but this problem of the extraction of water from the Thames for use in London is an extremely complicated problem and quite a unique one.
Section 162 of the Thames Conservancy Act, to which the Amendment refers, provides that the Metropolitan Water Board shall not abstract any water from the Thames when the flow of water over Teddington Weir is below 170 million gallons a day, or so as to reduce the flow below that figure. To give the Committee some idea of the picture, I would mention that the mean flow—that is, the average daily flow—fluctuates from year to year, and is about 400 million gallons a day against the 170 million gallons limit. But it is an astonishingly variable factor. In times of spate it has gone up as high as 8,000 million gallons, and one day in the last fortnight it exceeded 6,000 million gallons.
In the Thames Conservancy Act Section 167 makes provision for this figure of 170 million gallons to be reduced in an emergency by orders made jointly by the Minister—it would now be the Minister of Housing and Local Government—and by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. From time to time, emergency orders were made under Section 167. It was then found by the parties concerned—that is, the Thames Conservancy, the Metropolitan Water Board and the Port of London Authority—that it was rather inconvenient to have orders made from time to time and varied, and, as a result, two more or less permanent orders were made under the Water Act, 1945. One of these orders covers the period from February to May, and the other the period from June to January each year. During the early period, February to May, when in the ordinary course there is always plenty of water flowing down, the flow may be reduced to 90 million gallons a day. This order has not been frequently implemented, but it does help the Metropolitan Water Board to fill up their reservoirs at a time when there is plenty of water available.
During the second period, the long period, June to January, the order is an extraordinarily complicated one, and I hope the Committee will not expect me
66
to explain it because I should be quite incapable of doing so, and you cannot understand it unless you have a chart or graph, of which I have seen a copy, with lines all over it, which determines in some ingenious way the amount of water that can be extracted by relation to the amount in the reservoirs at any one time or the amount of the flow over Teddington Weir. The effect of this is that, in extreme emergencies of drought, the flow can be reduced to 50 million gallons a day. Of course, in an extreme drought the flow may even go below that figure (it has been, I believe, just under 20 million gallons) and then the Metropolitan Water Board cannot extract any water at all.
The position is that, after full consultation with all the parties concerned. an extremely complicated formula has been agreed. It has worked well and smoothly for a number of years, and I think all concerned with it—the Thames Conservancy, the Metropolitan Water Board and the Port of London Authority—do not wish to see it disturbed. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Viscount has told us that the graph is complicated. Fortunately, the purpose of his Amendment is clear: it is to secure that no order should be made under the Bill to alter the amount of water which the Metropolitan Water Board are authorised to abstract from the Thames. As my noble friend Lord Simon has told us, Section 162 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932, lays down the detailed conditions for abstractions by the Metropolitan Water Board. These conditions have recently been amended, after discussion with all the interests concerned, by two orders under the Water Act, 1945. These orders provide a formula for varying the Board's abstractions according to the flow over Teddington Weir and the amount of water in the Board's reservoirs.
It is unlikely that any further alteration to the Board's powers will be needed, but if it did become necessary the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932, provides its own machinery for making

67
emergency orders. That is in Section 167. I can therefore accept the intention of the noble Viscount's Amendment, but I am afraid the wording will need to be looked at, as an Amendment to the Thames Conservancy Act is not the only way in which an order under the Water Bill could be used to increase the Board's authorised abstraction from the Thames. I can therefore give my noble friend Lord Simon an undertaking that we will look at this matter carefully and put down a Government Amendment to meet his point on the Report stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. In those circumstances, of course, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Supplying water by temporary means during a drought]
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) An order under this section—

(a) shall not authorise the undertakers, except with the consent of the navigation authority, to erect, set up or maintain standpipes or water tanks—

(i) in any street belonging to and repairable by any navigation authority; or

(ii) so as to obstruct the access to or exit from any dock, wharf or other work of a navigation authority;

(b) any consent required by this subsection shall not be unreasonably withheld, but may be given subject to any reasonable conditions;

(c) any dispute between the undertakers and a navigation authority as to whether consent is unreasonably withheld or is given subject to reasonable conditions shall be referred to and determined by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation."

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment seeks to give protection to navigation authorities—and it may well be that some other public utilities would like to come under the same umbrella—as regards the obstruction of streets or the approaches to wharves or docks by the erection of stand-pipes or water tanks. I think it possible that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will tell me that it is unlikely in an emergency of this kind that any stand-pipes or water tanks would be put in the approaches to wharves. I agree it is not probable, but because it is unlikely I do not think it is wrong to make provision against those very few
68
cases where a water undertaker might wish to do this.
I would remind noble Lords that in looking at a matter of this kind one does not want to look solely at a port like Liverpool or London. There are ports a long way inland up some navigable rivers which are really in country districts, and they might be affected by provisions of this kind. I would point out to the Committee that there is in fact a similar provision to this in Section 5 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1953, which deals with the erection of bus shelters, and there is the same provision in the corresponding Scottish Bill which is now before Parliament, the Local Government (Omnibus Shelters and Queue Barriers) (Scotland) Bill. In both those measures there is provision for the consent of navigation authorities and other public undertakers to be obtained before obstructions are put in streets for which they are responsible. It seems to me an eminently sensible arrangement, and I should rather hope that this would be a check upon the inadvertent use of an order which might quite unwittingly cause damage to other interests. It is an arrangement which perhaps the noble Lord would be willing to accept.
I apologise that something seems to have gone wrong with the drafting. Paragraphs (b) and (c) clearly do not link up with the preamble of the subsection. I think the small (a) in brackets should be deleted and (b) and (c) should be replaced by (4) and (5). Subject to that amendment I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD SALTOUN: If I might dot an "i" for the noble Viscount, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the Port of Glasgow particularly is very much inland and might be much in need of a provision of this kind. I once gave in your Lordships' House the result of the disastrous effect of not obtaining proper consents under the war regulations, and it was such a horrible case with such horrible results that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon's father, thought I was exaggerating and said it was dreadful. I was not exaggerating a bit, and therefore I think some clause of this sort is very necessary.
LORD MANCROFT: There are, as my noble friend Lord Simon says, many important interests which could be affected if the water undertakers were stupid about siting stand-pipes and emergency water tanks—fire stations, bus depôts, hospitals, and so on. I do not think it is really necessary to single out navigation authorities for special protection. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, more or less hinted at that. I should have thought that this was really a matter which could be safely left to the common sense of the water undertakers. I do not think it is necessary to go to quite the lengths the noble Viscount wants. So far as land in the ownership of the navigation authority is concerned, they are, under the First Schedule, entitled to notice and will be able to make representations to the Minister. A parallel procedure which provided for disputes to be settled by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation would be out of keeping with the need for speed which is the essence of the whole procedure of the Bill. I would ask the noble Viscount to be good enough to think this matter over. I am prepared to talk it over with him. I would ask him to think over whether leaving it to the good sense of the water undertakers would not really in this case meet his purpose.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I do not wish to imply that the water undertakers would be stupid, but I think it is conceivable they might be ignorant of the effect of putting, tanks or stand-pipes in some particular position. It would be quite easy, of course, for the navigation authority to make representations; but one knows that when a statutory undertaker has set his mind to do something it is often difficult to persuade him against it. I will, however, take away the noble Lord's words of wisdom and cull them over in my mind, and I may take the opportunity later of coming to consult the noble Lord about it.
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that it is just the fact that it is an emergency that makes people careless and rather rough. It was an emergency that caused the disaster to which I was referring.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I will bear that point in mind also before I come to discuss the matter with the noble Lord. I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
6.27 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:
Restrictions on irrigation
".—(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 the appropriate river board make an order containing such provisions as appear to him to be expedient for enabling the river board to regulate and, if necessary, to prohibit the abstraction of water from any watercourse in the locality by means of pumps or other similar apparatus for the purpose of irrigation and the Minister may include in the order such supplemental incidental and consequential provisions as appear to him to be expedient for those purposes.
(2) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of orders under this section subject to the following modifications:—

(a) references to the area of the river board applying for the order shall be substituted for references to the limits of supply of the applicants; and

(b) notice of the application for the order shall be served on every local authority whose areas lies wholly or partly in the locality to which the order relates and on no other person.

(3) If any person contravenes any provisions of an order made under this section he shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence under the Water Act, 1945:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting, or restricting the abstraction of water for domestic purposes."
The noble Earl said: I confess to feeling some diffidence in moving this new clause, not only because of the comparatively late hour but also because of the fact that what we are asking for here is a new control, which is something that must not be asked for lightly.
I am one of those who greatly admire the facility and grace with which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, changes his hat. He speaks for such a varied number of Departments and never seems to let the interests of those Departments in any way be lost sight of. I myself in this matter am not clad in one hat only. I see its importance from the point of

71
view of the river boards and the water undertakers, but first and foremost my first love must be agriculture. Here is a new agricultural technique, this new mobile irrigation which has come—and come to stay. But I think there is no doubt that at some time or other Parliament will have to consider this matter, and it occurred to me that this was a proper moment on which it might be considered, perhaps almost for the first time in Parliament. I am not sanguine enough to believe that noble Lords will be able to accept this new clause as it stands, but I feel that this is an opportunity to consider a matter which will have to be considered sooner or later.
What is the problem? The problem is that this new technique of agricultural irrigation has been developed whereby farmers who are riparian owners put into the rivers or water courses, be they main rivers or only minor tributaries, modern high-powered pumps which will pump up to 3,000 gallons an hour, or more, with which to irrigate the crops growing on their land. This is not only done, as one might suppose, in the more and districts of the Eastern Counties; it is even done quite considerably by the modern farmer in the Western districts where we grow grass, because it is just these succulent green crops that suffer most when a severe drought occurs.
Let us consider what is likely to be the problem involved. We have a statutory flow of compensation water going down a river, being released from some reservoir. We shall have these emergency powers in the hands of the Minister, once this Bill, which permits the temporary reduction, after due notice and so on, of this statutory compensation flow, has reached the Statute Book. But it is conceivable that the whole exercise will be brought to naught because there will be no water in the river, or far less than the statutory amount which should be there, because, just at this time of sudden and unprecedented drought, the wily agricultural contractor has moved into the area with his mobile pumps and his portable apparatus, and large quantities of water are being abstracted from the river.
The whole basis of any river policy must be "fair shares". There are these enormous numbers of uses to which
72
water has to be put—domestic use; water for human consumption; industrial water; water for agriculture; navigation; fisheries; prevention of pollution by dilution and a number of other causes, all of which are largely controlled by Statute. There is the most careful draftsmanship going into all these new Statutes. Then, in the middle of all this, along comes a new idea, something that is quite a new thing to the established Department—agricultural irrigation, which makes, or may make, a nonsense of the whole thing. Therefore, I feel that we must give consideration to this problem. I shall be happy to be advised by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on what is the proper way. I am not prepared to press this particular new clause, but it seems to me that it is a way in which this matter should be raised and considered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD BURDEN: The fact that this new clause has been put down at the instance of the River Boards Association is, I think, an indication of the broad-minded manner in which the Association looks at problems of this kind. After all, those of us who know the composition of the river boards will be aware that agricultural interests—I will not say predominate but, at any rate, are largely represented on the river boards; and if, as the noble Earl has explained, this clause were rigidly interpreted, it might strike a severe blow at some agricultural interests. On the other hand, I suppose one can argue that the uncontrolled abstraction of water during times of acute shortage is a matter which ought seriously to be considered, and that one interest alone should not have the opportunity of looking after its own particular side of the problem. It seems to me that that is the essence of this proposed new clause, and what we should like is some guidance from the Minister in dealing with this problem. As the noble Earl has said, the new clause is not one which we propose to press, but we should like the problem to be looked at and to receive some guidance from the Ministry.
LORD LATHAN: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, answers, there is

73
a point I should like to make. First of all, I must declare an interest—namely, membership of the Metropolitan Water Board. Having regard, as the noble Lord admitted at the outset of these proceedings, to the short time available between Second Reading and the Committee stage (I gather that appropriate facilities will be available to us between now and the Report stage) I must say frankly that I have not had sufficient time to consult the Metropolitan Water Board as to what the effect of this proposed new clause may be. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, has indicated that it really introduces a new policy—far-reaching, apparently touching all aspects of the use of water. In those circumstances, it seems clear that we must have time to consider the implications of this new clause. Of course, the Minister will be best able to say, but having regard to the fact that the proposals would affect almost every use of water I should have thought that this Bill, which deals with a limited aspect of water supplies, was clearly not the appropriate place for this matter to be dealt with. No doubt the Minister can give us some guidance on that point.
LORD MANCROFT: I think that if I were to accept this new clause the three noble Lords who have spoken to the Amendment would be three most startled noble Lords because, of course, it goes right outside the scope of the Bill. After all, this is a Bill to enable statutory water undertakers to meet deficiences in the supply of water. There is nothing in the new clause linking the proposed restrictions to areas where the rivers are used or are likely to be used for public water supplies. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot possibly accept the Amendment in its present form.
Let me say this, however. The control of abstraction from rivers in order to safeguard river board interests is a matter which the River Boards Association has been pressing vigorously for some time. Statutory water undertakers cannot abstract water from rivers, either temporarily or permanently, without an order of the Minister. Any control of other abstractions would involve restricting the Common Law rights of riparian owners and is not a step which could lightly be undertaken. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, appreciates
74
that point. It is, however, under consideration in the Department of my right honourable friend, as a result of representations made by the River Boards Association; but I do not think it would be right, even if it were within the scope of the Bill, to make such a fundamental alteration in a minor Bill such as the one we are at present considering. However, if my noble friend Lord Waldegrave can give me some evidence that there are rivers where a control on the lines of the new clause would help to produce water supplies in an emergency, I should of course be happy to consider it.
I am doubtful how far any new power is needed to control abstraction of water specifically for irrigation. A riparian owner has a Common Law right to use water from a river so long as he returns it to the river substantially unaltered in quantity and quality. Irrigation by overhead sprays, as now practised, does not leave any water to be returned to the river. The River Boards Association, may, therefore, like to consider the point that if a riparian owner abstracts so much water for irrigation as to injure the interests of owners lower down the stream, he is liable to proceedings at Common Law. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Waldegrave would like to turn these points over in his mind, and perhaps we might have some discussions to see if we can help him and his friends in any way in regard to this very real problem. I am afraid that I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. Nor is it much good my offering the noble Lord a re-draft, because the principle goes right outside the Bill, and I believe that we should be letting ourselves in for a great deal of trouble if we were to widen the scope of the measure at this stage. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord more assistance than that, but such assistance as I can give, I offer him.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I must, of course, accept that statement, which is quite as far as I expected the noble Lord to be able to go. If, as was implied by what the noble Lord said, this Amendment is badly drafted, I hope that he will accept our apologies—perhaps that was partly due to the hurry in which all this was done. I am sure that we have here a problem which will have to be

75
tackled. I am no lawyer but I cannot doubt that the obtaining of an injunction, under Common Law, for injurious action is a lengthy process. If we are to try to do that in the middle of an emergency operation in drought we may come into difficulties.
Before withdrawing my Amendment, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to make clear my position from the point of view of the agricultural interest. Noble Lords who know me well will know that I have no wish to hamper or restrict agricultural development—in fact the whole of my intention is opposite. But I feel that it is not the kindest thing one can do to the agricultural industry to allow them to develop without control and without any kind of regulation, so that a system, just when it has got going, may have to be stopped. I feel that it is much better to deal with possible dangers in advance, before they arise. That is what I hope will be done. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for saying that he will look into this point, though not in connection with this particular Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Revocation of Defence Regulations 50A and 56
(2) Any order under either of the said Regulations which is in force immediately before the coming into operation of this section shall, unless previously revoked by an order of the Minister under this section, continue to apply as if the Regulation had not been revoked until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty, and the provisions of Regulation 50A concerning compensation shall continue to apply in relation to any order under that Regulation.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty." The noble Earl said: With the Committee's permission, perhaps I may speak on Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together. Here the real point is the six months' orders. I understand that under the present Bill these emergency orders will normally have a currency of six months, but if I have correctly read the clauses which I now seek to amend, they have the effect of extending existing orders for this increased period—up to
76
March 31, 1960. That has two effects which I cannot believe were intended. It has the effect of gratuitously extending orders that are already limited, for no particular reason that I can see. It also has the effect of doing what I am sure Her Majesty's Government have no wish to do—as it were, subsidising inefficiency.
We heard on Second Reading the point—a good one—that these emergency powers, which would be granted only in circumstances of exceptional shortage of rain, were not to be used as a means of letting water undertakings have exceptional powers when they themselves had not used sufficient foresight to provide for water in abnormal conditions. There are now in existence orders which have to do with charges and matters other than exceptional shortages of water and I realise that those must be, continued until some date. I appreciate that the words connected with the date must be in the Bill, and presumably somewhere in this clause; but I suggest that the proper place to put them is as I now wish to move. The effect of what I am now moving is that we shall not then automatically and gratuitously extend orders on variations or reductions of compensation flow. We shall not let these matters run on for more than the six months which is provided for under the Bill, but, if my suggested Amendments are adopted, we shall cover the point of other orders—charge orders and so on—which must be allowed to continue. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, leave out from ("revoked") to ("and") in line 40.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD MANCROFT: When I first saw these two Amendments, Nos. 8 and 9, on the Order Paper, I presumed that the noble Earl had put them down because he and his friends thought that the subsection as drafted could possibly be held to continue all existing orders in force until March 31, 1960—even those which include a provision to bring them to an end before that date. The noble Earl has now confirmed that point. I am advised that there is no doubt about the effect of the subsection as drafted, but, in any case, I am afraid that the wording of the noble Earl's Amendment will not do, because apparently it would have the effect of bringing to an end at March 31, 1960, the provisions of Regulation 50A

77
concerning compensation; and there may well be some claims which cannot be settled or even made until after that date. Possibly the noble Earl may have overlooked that point. In any case, though I am advised (and I believe well advised) on that point, if the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, which I could not accept in any case, I will look at the wording again, now that I have reassured myself in my mind as to what was worrying the noble Earl, to see whether the point is a sound one and whether we can do something to ease it.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: That is quite satisfactory, and on that understanding I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Interpretation]
VISCOUNT SIMONhad given notice of an Amendment to insert in subsection (1):
" 'operational land' has the meaning given to that expression, as respects England and Wales by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and as respects Scotland by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is consequential to others which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is unable to accept and therefore I will not move it.
Clause 4 agreed to.

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

All orders

(a) Every local authority whose area lies wholly or partly within the limits of supply of the applicants.

(b) Such statutory water undertakers, if any, as the Minister may direct.

Orders which suspend or modify an enactment.

Such persons (if any) as are specified by name in the enactment as being persons for whose protection it was enacted.

Orders which suspend or modify an agreement.

The parties to the agreement other than the applicants.

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

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

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

Orders which authorise the execution of any works.

Every local authority within whose area the works are situated.

6.50 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVEhad given Notice of three Amendments to paragraph 1 (1), the first being to omit "river board or" from paragraph (b) relating to "Orders concerning the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water." The noble Earl said: I do not know whether it is possible for Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 to be taken together. No. 13 is the substantive one, and Amendments 11 and 12 follow upon it. In my opening remarks, speaking to Clause 1, I made clear the point that is behind these Amendments. The short point is that I seek to put the river boards on "all fours" with the local authorities, and to make it a requirement that the Minister must always consult, or give notice to, as the case may be, a river board where, under the Bill as it is worded, he has to give notice to a local authority. It may be asked: why did I not move to add the words "river board" at an earlier point in the Schedule, so that in respect of all orders every local authority and every river board should have notice given to it. I did not do that largely for very technical reasons (I shall not go into them now, and I doubt if I could keep afloat if I did), not unconnected with the Thames and Lee Conservancy Boards and their Works Acts and requirements. I am advised by those who should know that it is best to

79
put the matter this way. I hope that noble Lords will agree with me and leave it at that.
I contend that, as the Schedule is set out (and I remarked on this at Second Reading of the Bill), it rather begs the question so far as river boards are concerned. It says that notice shall be given to any river board exercising functions over a watercourse affected. That begs the question. We cannot always be sure what river course, or source, will be affected. It is a fact that the whole of England and Wales is covered by the thirty-four river boards, and I cannot see why these river boards should not have the statutory notice given to them. If they are not affected, they can make no objection; but if they are affected, they, like others in the Statute, will be protected in the same way as others in the Statute. There is a real point here that is connected not only with compensation water but with the abstraction of underground water, or the increasing abstraction from an underground source. It may well be that an issue will arise concerning the river board as to what abstraction does affect the watercourse. I think the only way that this can be overcome is by the river board automatically having the notice given to it. We should not beg the question as to whether it ought to have the notice given to it or not beforehand.
There are other questions involved here. I am advised that there might well be a dispute on the legal wording of the Schedule as it is now set out. For example, an application may relate to a watercourse which is not a main river, which contains no fish and which, so far as one can be aware at the time, is not polluted. In those circumstances it might be open to the water undertaker to contend that the river board were not exercising any function over that particular river and to say that no statutory notice was required. Those may be considered hair-splitting points. It may be that points of that kind would not arise, but here we are parting with Defence Regulations and enshrining these emergency orders in a Statute. Surely, when we are writing our Statute, we do not want to leave things to chance; we want to make abundantly clear what is going to be done and what ought to be done.
80
Accordingly, I beg to move the first of these Amendments which materially alter the wording in paragraph (b), at line 30, and have the effect of making it obligatory on the Minister to give a notice to every river board when an emergency order is going to be made in its area.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("river board or").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD MANCROFT: What my noble friend seeks to do here is to provide that river boards will get notice of abstractions proposed from any source in their area. Under the Bill as at present drafted, river boards will get notice only of abstractions from water courses over which they exercise jurisdiction. The reason for the Amendment, as I understand it, is that the river boards think that abstractions of underground water near rivers—for example, from boreholes or mines, gravel pits and quarries—may affect the flow in the river. This is, I suggest, a theoretical possibility, but experience in dealing with licences under the Water Act for abstractions from boreholes does not suggest that it is very likely to arise in practice. In any case, before authorising any abstractions affecting underground water-bearing strata my right honourable friend the Minister would consult the Geological Survey, who are his advisers on all underground water matters and who would know, I suggest, much more about the risks in any particular case than the river board.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide an emergency procedure and, in the interests of speed, to which I have drawn attention more than once in the Committee this afternoon, it is desirable to cut down as far as possible the number of notices which have to be given. If I may say so with respect, we have in the course of the debate on these Amendments lost sight of that important purpose of the Bill.
Abstractions from gravel pits and ponds which have no outlet to a river are the sort of arrangements very likely to be made under the Bill. But to widen the scope of the notices to river boards would bring them into a lot of unnecessary cases, with very doubtful advantage to the interests of the river boards; and, for reasons which I have already outlined on previous Amendments I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

81
Abstractions of water from underground are, as the noble Earl has told us, controlled in some areas of the country by licences under the Water Act, 1945. The regulations about service of notices do not include the serving of notices on river board, and I think I am right in saying that the River Boards Association have been pressing my right honourable friend for some time to amend the regulations so as to bring them in, for the reasons I have already been discussing. My right honourable friend, however, has always felt that their interest is too remote to justify amendment of the regulations, and he has asked the river boards to produce evidence that their work has been hampered by their not getting notices. So far as I know no evidence has been produced since the point was last raised several months ago. I think that that serves only to give weight to the argument I have already advanced: that to do this would be cutting across the main purpose of the Bill, which is speed in a moment of crisis. I hope that the noble Lord will not think I have been too harsh against his Amendment, because I can see what he is driving at. I hope he will be good enough to consider carefully the arguments I have advanced, and I hope that one day I may convince him that speed, which we believe to be the essence of the contract, remains all-important.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I entirely agree that the essence of this whole contract is speed. But I am afraid that I am not absolutely convinced that any considerable delay would be incurred, or that any delay at all would be incurred, in recognising that the river boards have grown up. There is no question but that some local authorities may be obstructive. There may be such things—I do not know—as reactionary local authorities, no doubt very small and remote ones, who will say when they receive a notice: "Why do they want these extra orders?" Conceivably, they may be obstructive and delay proceedings. That is very reprehensible but it is conceivable that it might happen. But I do not think it is right for the Minister to say that he will give notice only to local authorities which can prove that they have an interest. By the wording, of the Bill, every local authority will have its notice, and I beg the noble Lord to allow river boards to grow up
82
and be treated as responsible bodies who can be given their due notice. It should not be assumed that they are immediately going to obstruct and cause delay. That might happen only if the notice implied that the order ought not to be made, and that could happen with any of the local authorities notified. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has been very good to me on these Amendments, but I could not quite accept what he had to say on this one without a slight "come-back". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL WALDEGRAVE EARL WALDEGRAVE moved to insert in the Table, after "Every local authority within whose area the works are situated":
"and in the case of any order authorising the execution of any works in over or under or affecting any watercourse under the jurisdiction of a drainage authority, the authority concerned."
The noble Earl said: This is the last Amendment with which I shall worry your Lordships to-night. I hope that the Government will consent to this point. It is not an important Amendment and again deals with the question of notice. I beg your Lordships not to think that the river boards are asking for notice because of any amour-propre or for the sake of saving face. We feel that we are entitled to have these notices and cannot understand why we are not considered responsible people who are entitled to have notice when any works are going to be authorised. At the moment, every local authority within whose area works are situated has to be notified, and I maintain that every river board should be notified also. These works are on rivers and are bound to be either in an area which is under the direct control of a river board or which comes under a river board in its capacity as drainage authority. I will not delay the Committee, but I would suggest that this is a matter which the noble Lord could look at again, to see whether he can help us to receive statutory notice as of right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
LORD BURDEN: I want to say only two words. This is an Amendment to which the river boards attach considerable importance. We got on with the

83
first Amendment better than I anticipated, and on the last Amendment I hope that we shall get some measure of assurance that the Government will look at the matter again. I am sure that we have not been obstructive, but constructive, and if the noble Lord can help us, it would be greatly appreciated.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Earl's Amendment provides that the drainage authority should receive notice about any order authorising works which affect a water course under their jurisdiction. I can tell him straight away that I accept the spirit of his Amendment, but I am afraid that the definition of "drainage authority" may need looking at in the light of the River Boards Act, 1948. If the noble Earl will accept this undertaking, I will look carefully at the wording. I give him a promise to put down an Amendment at Report stage to meet his point. And do not let me hear any more about stonewalling from the noble Lord, Lord Burden.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am glad that it was not I who said something about stonewalling, because I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting us in this way. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft? I am sure that he has not taken offence at the few words at the beginning of our debate.
LORD LATHAM: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whether he has any statement to make on the situation which will arise when Defence Regulation 56 ceases to be operative and thus power to make an order to deal with the user of the reservoirs of the Metropolitan Water Board is removed?
LORD MANCROFT: The Ministry has been in touch with the Metropolitan Water Board since we mentioned this matter on Second Reading and a meeting took place last week between representatives of the Board and officers of my right honourable friend's Department. It
84
was pointed out that an amendment of the Bill to meet the Board's needs would be outside the Long Title of the Bill, which is restricted to meeting deficiencies in the supply of water due to exceptional shortage of rain. The Board, however, require an order to operate when there is plenty of rain and plenty of water in the Thames, so that they can have their reservoirs full before a drought arrives. Even if the scope of the Bill could be extended, it would not be much help to the Board to have an order which lasted for only six months at a time, because they would want to be able to rely on having powers for a reasonable period ahead. Similarly, it would not be much use saving the existing order beyond its present expiry date of July, 1958, as it could not be saved beyond the end of March, 1960. The representatives of the Board accepted the position that they must either find a remedy outside the Bill or do without the additional storage provided under the Defence Regulation Order. I am sorry that we cannot help more than this, but anything that we might put into the Bill would be nearly as out of order as is the noble Lord at the moment in raising this question at this stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE BILL
7.9 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY (SUPERANNUATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.