Lords Sitting of 1 May 1958

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

  RAILWAY STATION CAR PARKS
  3.5 p.m.
  LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) how many motor vehicles were reported stolen from the vicinity of railway stations over the last year;
  (2) how many stolen vehicles were found abandoned in or around Service camps, and of these how many had been reported stolen from railway stations.]
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I regret that the information required is not available.
  LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I can understand that. But is the noble Lord aware that at the main-line stations—and Darlington, perhaps, is a good example—there are no adequate parking facilities for those who may be going away for two or three days and who wish to leave their cars at the stations? Motorists are charged a shilling for parking, but their cars are not looked after. The other day mine was stolen within two hours of my leaving it there. Are there plans afoot for improving parking facilities at these main-line stations? When I reported my loss to the police, I was told that my car would probably turn up at one of the Army camps. Sure enough, it was found abandoned at a camp near Barnard Castle; and I was told that a bus had been taken away and found in one of these camps.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that he is asking a question, and his remarks should not be longer than necessary to put the question?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that the matter referred to by my noble friend does not strictly arise on this Question. If he would like to put down a further Question on the subject, I should be delighted to answer it.

  HONG KONG TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government if they have considered the serious effects to the economy and employment of the Colony of Hong Kong following the closure of the Naval Dock Yard, and the expected restriction of cotton exports to the United Kingdom, brought about through pressure on the industry in Hong Kong, by Her Majesty's Government and the cotton industry of this country, and whether Her Majesty's Government, to compensate for the loss of trade and employment, will now abolish the trade restrictions between Hong Kong and China.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords. I can assure the noble Lord that both Her Majesty's Government and the Hong Kong Government are very conscious of the effects of the closure of the Naval Dockyard, and are doing their best to minimise any damage to Hong Kong's economy. I am glad to say that of the 700 workers so far discharged, new jobs have already been found for over 630. There is still a long way to go, but these figures are evidence of considerable effort and achievement.
  On a possible scheme by voluntary agreement between the industries for limiting cotton textile exports to this country, negotiations between these industries have not yet started, and noble Lords will not expect me to say anything about their probable outcome. But if such a scheme materializes, careful watch will naturally be kept on the employment situation. I hope that the foregoing will be of some reassurance to the noble Lord.
  As regards trade between Hong Kong and China, this is, of course, subject to the same strategic controls as those

  1173
  operated by the United Kingdom and other N.A.T.O. countries. These controls are now under international review.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they realise how important it is, if they wish to stay in Hong Kong, that these controls on trade should be ended? At the moment, they are merely frustrating both to the Chinese Government and to the English traders.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his Answer and express our appreciation to the Government of Hong Kong of their successful work in finding employment for the employees who have lost their work through the closure of the Naval Dockyard? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the traditional trade of Hong Kong, which arises from the fact that the port is an entrepôt between China and the rest of the world, was seriously damaged by the embargo, and that it was only through considerable industrialisation that it was possible to keep the economy of Hong Kong sound and enable it to absorb over one million refugees without any financial assistance either from this country or from the United Nations? May I ask the noble Earl to see that nothing is done by this country, either by the Government or by industry, that could possibly inspire other countries to take action to restrict imports of Hong Kong products?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, first, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that we are very much aware of the importance of trying to help Hong Kong in every way. As regards the achievement of Hong Kong in having managed, despite the various prohibitions, to do so well, that is indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says, something of which we all should be proud. The fact that they should at the same time have taken care of the refugees is a still greater achievement.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the noble Earl said that Hong Kong trade was governed by the strategic embargo.
  1174
  This is a point that we have raised with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, several times. Of course, we understand that the embargo is a collective decision, but a collective decision cannot be changed unless somebody takes the initiative. I want to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative to get the embargo changed by raising the matter specifically with the other countries who are involved with Her Majesty's Government in enforcing the embargo?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not think that I could accept what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said—namely, that Hong Kong trade is governed by the embargo. What we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and what I myself have said, shows that Hong Kong has done wonders, regardless of the embargo. On the second point, there is nothing I can add to the fact that these controls are now under international agreement.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I understand that. As I have said, they are a collective decision, and they wilt remain a collective decision, operating as they are now, unless there is a change; and there will be no change in the collective decision unless one of the nations in the circle takes the initiative. I would ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative with her other partners to have the embargo ended.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think there is nothing more I can add to what I have said—namely, that we are well aware of the importance of the matter to certain of the Colonies, and at the present moment international review of the situation is being undertaken.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the position is most unsatisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has given us some sympathetic replies, but we want action taken. I should like to give notice that we shall take the opportunity of raising the matter again.

  CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN THE BAHAMAS
  3.15 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to indicate the nature of the constitutional changes in the Bahamas proposed as a result of the visit of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.]
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the noble Lord may be familiar with the reply given by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary to a Question in another place on April 13, after he had returned from the Bahamas. On constitutional matters it is proposed to introduce universal adult male suffrage. The present low property qualification will be abolished. Representations were made to my right honourable friend about votes for women, but he and the Governor are not convinced that there is a sufficiently wide demand for this change at present.
  It is further proposed to abolish the company vote under which a man may have a number of votes in respect of a number of different companies; and also to abolish the present arrangement by which a voter may have a vote in every constituency. The plural vote is to be limited to two, the second vote requiring a property qualification in a second constituency. It is also proposed that constituencies should be brought more into line with the distribution of population within the Colony. To this end four additional seats are to be created for New Providence. By-elections to these four seats would be held as soon as the necessary arrangements could be made, including the preparation of a new register of voters.
  Legislation to bring about these changes needs to be brought into effect by the end of this year. It is understood that these proposals have received general approval in the Colony, and in the last week the Constitution Committee of the House of Assembly has reported in favour of them.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that encouraging reply, may I ask him whether it is
  1176
  not possible, in the present stage of our constitutional advance, to reconsider the question of votes for women; and also, whether it is true, as rumour has it, that there is a small but powerful and reactionary opposition in the Bahamas which is resisting the change?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think I can add nothing on the question of votes for women. This matter was carefully considered by my right honourable friend and others, and they feel that what has been decided is right. With regard to the opposition, I think that probably that is always a good thing, particularly when I look in front of me at the moment. But what is important is what happens. I understand that at this moment the Constituent Committee of the House of Assembly has reported in favour of the various proposals and if that is followed by a vote of the House of Assembly, then we need not worry too much.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Earl about the efficacy of opposition, and especially this Opposition, may I say that I hope that the vocal and powerful opposition in the Bahamas will not stop the Government from pursuing the course of action outlined?
  LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to elucidate his remarks about the by-elections in four extra constituencies? I take it that later on a General Election will be held under the new suffrage laws. If these by-elections are held, will the new suffrage operate in those elections? And when may we expect a General Election there?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as I understand it, the by-elections for the four seats will be held quite apart from the fact of any General Election. I think the General Election will take its ordinary course, but rather than wait until that time, the four by-elections will be held now, and I assume that they will be on the new basis.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I apologise for asking a further question, but I should like to have the point clarified. When the noble Earl suggested that it needs legislation, did he mean legislation by this Parliament? In view of the fact that the Bahamas is such an old

  1177
  Colony, is it necessary for us to pass legislation here, or is it only the House in the Bahamas that has to do it?
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think it is only the House in the Bahamas, because at this stage it is an internal matter.

  THE LONDON BUS DISPUTE
  3.19 p.m.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice: whether they can make any statement with regard to the position of the bus dispute.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I regret that I have nothing to add to the comprehensive statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, why was action not taken on the proposal made by Mr. Cousins? That proposal seemed to some of us to jeopardise his trade union position, and if he could go so far in the public interest why was it not followed up?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my right honourable friend made it perfectly clear in his statement that he would not take any action which would have as its object a variation of an industrial court award. He added [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol 587, col. 380]:
  "I have to-day told the union that I regret that I cannot accede to its request, as to do so would be to depart from the principle of adherence to arbitration awards. …"
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, we have the recent spectacle of an award being absolutely turned down by the Government—I refer to the award which was given to the personnel in the National Health Service. Where is the justice? Where is the consistency between the statement that has just been made and the action taken previously?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, my right honourable friend explained that point in some detail yesterday in another place, and I have nothing to add to his statement.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S VISIT TO TANGANYIKA
  3.21 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a personal statement. In my capacity as Lord Chancellor I have received from the Government of Tanganyika an invitation to open the new High Court in Dar-es-Salaam on Saturday, 17th May. It is proposed that I should perform this Ceremony dressed in the Lord Chancellor's robes and that I should address the Judges and members of the legal profession from the Bench of the new Court. Your Lordships will no doubt remember that in attending such a ceremony I shall, as I did three years ago in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, be following the happy precedent set by my distinguished predecessor, the late Lord Jowitt.
  My attendance at this ceremony would make it necessary for me to leave on the 15th May, and I could not conveniently return until after the date on which, in the normal course of events, this House will have risen for the Whitsun Recess. I should add that I have also been invited to join the Chief Justice of the United States at the ceremonial foundation of the new Law School Building of the University in Chicago. This ceremony will take place in the week beginning Whit Sunday, and my attendance will not involve my missing any Sitting of the House. Accordingly, I ask for your Lordships' approval of my visit to Dar-es-Salaam, and if your Lordships are good enough to give me this I am sure that I shall take with me to Tanganyika the good wishes of your Lordships from every quarter of the House.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will unanimously approve the application which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has just made. It seems to me quite extraordinary that, with the great load of responsibilities and work that rests upon him, he should seek still further work to do. I am quite sure that his presence at Dar-es-Salaam will be greatly appreciated, as also when he visits Chicago. His presence at Dar-es-Salaam will surely emphasise the oneness of the Commonwealth, and on behalf

  1179
  of noble Lords who sit behind me I would wish him well indeed on his mission.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we on this side of course gladly agree to give the noble and learned Viscount leave of absence. In the normal course of events I imagine that he would have to apply to himself, but in this case he has taken the proper course of applying to the House. We give this leave of absence the more readily because we wholeheartedly approve of the purpose for which he is going. We think that he is achieving a great purpose in opening the Law Courts in Dar-es-Salaam. We hope and believe that they will administer British law in the British way there, and I am sure I that the presence of the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain will be a great inspiration to them and we shall bask in the reflected glory which his presence will give on that occasion.
  We are also proud of the fact that he has been asked to take part in the ceremony in Chicago, and this also will have the effect of cementing our relationships with the United States. It is fortunate that this takes place to a certain extent during the Whitsun Recess, otherwise I should have been stating the feelings of the whole House if I had warned the noble and learned Viscount against overdoing it. I know how tiring long-distance travel can be. but he will have the Whit-sun Recess before him, and I hope he will come back to us in his usual good health and good temper, and with the feeling that he has done a very good job.
  LORD REA: My Lords, from this quarter of the House I should like to endorse what has been said and to add our best wishes to the noble and learned Viscount in his trip abroad. I hope he will remember that he is very nearly irreplaceable, at least up to the date of the next General Election, and possibly thereafter, so I hope that he will not take any undue risk which might cause a replacement to be necessary. I think we shall all agree that the great assiduity with which he performs his Parliamentary, judicial and social functions is quite remarkable. Although we are certain that this visit will be extremely useful, we also hope that it will be enjoyable and pleasant.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, without inflicting any more words
  1180
  upon your Lordships, may I express my most sincere gratitude at the kindness which the speeches have shown.

  DEFENCE CONTRACTS BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

  WATER BILL [H.L.]
  3.27 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, may I suggest that we follow the normal procedure, of giving this Bill a formal Third Reading, after which we can consider the Amendments printed on our Marshalled List. We can then make on the Motion, "That the Bill do now pass", such speeches as we think fit. If that is agreed, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  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, subject to the provisions of this section, 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

  Before any statutory water undertakers make an application under this section they shall consult with any river board upon whom notice of the application will be required to be served' by the First Schedule to this Act.
  LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in the last paragraph of subsection (1), to leave out

  1181
  "Before" and insert "At the time when". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the first Amendment on the Marshalled List, and in so doing suppose it is appropriate that I should declare my interest, which is that I am a member of the Metropolitan Water Board. It is the case, however, that I am not speaking for the Board; nor is the Board largely concerned with the provisions of this Bill. It is in no pernickety sense that, at this relatively late stage in the progress of this Bill through your Lordships' House, I submit this Amendment. After all, Third Reading is an occasion when one can think again; indeed, the Government, as is shown by the Amendments standing on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, have thought again.
  When this paragraph which I seek to amend was under consideration during the Report stage it was accepted for the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but considerable doubts were felt on this side of the House as to the wisdom of imposing this obligation upon water undertakers. Those doubts were cogently and, I think, impressively voiced by my noble friend Lord Silkin. He took the view, which I share, that it was wrong to impose on the water undertakers this obligation to consult with the river boards. At that time I think the House did not appreciate that the obligation was not only to consult; it was to consult before the water undertakers made an application. So far as I know (the Minister will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong; if I am, I express regret in advance), no such obligation was cast upon the water undertakers in the procedure which allowed Orders to be made under the Defence Regulations.
  This application is to be made by the water undertaker when a crisis threatens. In the language of the Bill, it is when there has been "an exceptional shortage of rain" resulting in, or threatening, "a serious deficiency of supplies of water". The proposal now, as it seems to me, is that a water undertaker should be barred from making an application until he has consulted the river board or river boards. That seems to be strange, novel and quite unfair to the water undertakers, for they are responsible for supplying and distributing water. If there is a shortage of
  1182
  water it is they against whom the public complains.
  Moreover, what is consultation? In what circumstances can the water undertaker be regarded as having complied with this requirement? Has he merely to inform the river board? Has he to enter into negotiations? Is consultation to be regarded as having been held only if it is completed by agreement? Even the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who submitted this provision as an Amendment on Report stage, used words in his speech on that occasion which implied that (there might well be cases of disagreement between the river board and the water undertaker. Indeed, he used the words "head-on statutory collision". It is the case that the special statutory interests of river boards and of water undertakers are not the same. There is room for a difference of view. It seems to us that this stipulation that nothing shall be done by the water undertakers in the way of making an application until they have had consultations with a river authority must impair the capacity of the water undertakers to discharge their statutory obligation. It is unfair upon them. There is really no need, in our submission, for consultation. Certainly the consultation ought not to be required before the application. The river board is entitled to notice that an application has been made. The river board is entitled to be heard by the Minister before the Minister arrives at his decision. Surely that ought to be sufficient protection for all the proper interests of a river board, and it is in those terms and for those reasons that I move the Amendment standing on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 1, leave out. ("Before") and insert ("At the time when").—(Lord Latham.)
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will resist this Amendment. I am extremely sorry if, when I moved the previous Amendment, which is now incorporated in the Bill, I did it so badly that I left doubts in Lord Latham's mind as to what was intended; because as he deployed his argument it seemed to me quite clear that he misunderstood what is intended by this consultation. May I suggest to your Lordships that this is an emergency procedure?

  1183
  Before I say any more, I should perhaps once again declare my interest, as I am a director of a statutory water company.
  The water industry does not in fact go from emergency to emergency. These powers will, we hope, be used extremely seldom, but the idea of consultation was simply this: that even in the best regulated families mistakes sometimes occur, and we are here dealing with exceptional shortages of rain that may occur. We are dealing with a situation that may arise in a district where new population is springing up and the water undertaking has plans on foot to make long-term provision for this new population, new reservoirs and so on. Some acceleration of the housing, some deceleration of the reservoir, or some exceptional drought may create an emergency necessitating application being made under this Bill for the emergency powers. But the intention of this consultation was that any water undertaking, in considering its plans, will think things out and say, "Now in such and such circumstances we might conceivably have a need for emergency powers. What we would do if we got one of these droughts, this year, next year, or sometime "—we hope never—" would be to ask for a reduction in this compensation flow, or take this underground water here, or increase abstraction from this or that river. If that is our plan, let us ensure that we formulate that plan in our long-term programme, long before that emergency arises." The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked in a previous debate: "When is a drought not a drought? How can a water undertaking know when a drought is going to take place? "Of course, the water undertaking does not know when a drought is going to take place; but if it is duly prudent it will have plans laid in case such an eventuality arises.
  This Bill, which I hope noble Lords will agree has been greatly improved by the insertion of this provision, which would be nullified if Lord Latham's Amendment were accepted, simply provides that the water undertaking, in making its future plans, which it hopes it may never have to use (and the river board must be given statutory notice at the time of the application in any case) shall, as soon as the plan is made, consult with the river board. If this procedure is carried out it will have the effect
  1184
  of making the whole operation of the procedure under this Bill more rapid.
  Noble Lords opposite were afraid that this consultation might delay things in an emergency; but if this procedure of consultation which I have outlined now is taken, it will not delay things; it will have the effect of speeding them up. The consultation will have taken place; the river board will have been warned that water in certain circumstances may be taken. The river board will therefore have considered the matter and said, though they might not like it, "This is reasonable and the water undertaking can do nothing else". When the emergency arises, and the river board receives notice, instead of having a head-on statutory collison, a blank refusal, an objection with all the paraphernalia of considering that objection, the river board, having been previously consulted, will say, "We do not like the idea, but it must be. This is a perfectly reasonable notice of emergency procedure and should come into force without delay." I hope, therefore, that the Government will see fit to resist this Amendment.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Waldegrave in what he has said. It seems to me that the picture he draws is far more realistic than that drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I should like to go further, and point out that in his speech supporting his Amendment the noble Lord opposite expressed a doubt: he said he did not know what "consultation" implied or what it meant. If any doubt is at all possible, then it is far better that these consultations should take place beforehand, so that defective consultation can be remedied, than at a time when what is thought to be consultation would not be consultation at all—the undertakers would be wronged by the Act. It seems to me that the noble Lord's Amendment would wreck the clause and I hope that the Government will not accept it.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, and I agree with a great deal of what he has said. I think it would be wise if discussions took place, not when the crisis arose but long before, so that the water authorities had got their plans laid out and knew exactly what to do in the

  1185
  event of a crisis. That would be a very sensible thing to do. But the Bill does not provide for that at all. You may have as many talks as you like before a crisis arises, but you still need to have consultation at the time when you are—I see that the noble Earl shakes his head. If you leave the clause as it now stands, it means that you must still have consultation before you put in your application. You may have had your plans laid down for a year or two before, as the noble Lord has explained, not in contemplation of any crisis at all. But then a crisis arises and you decide to make an application; and before you make that application you still must have your consultation. It may be that that would be a mere formality; on the other hand, it may not. If it is not a mere formality, then we have the position that you begin your consultations before you can put in an application at a time when there is a crisis.
  I would respectfully suggest to the Government that that is not the way in which to proceed. We are not speaking as a Party, or even as an Opposition; we are all hoping to make this Bill a sound Bill, so that it will work in a common-sense way. I feel that this is a serious defect in the Bill. I agree that some provision ought to be made that, on the passing of the Bill, there should be discussion between the water authorities and the river boards as to what steps should be taken in the event of a crisis, so that when a crisis does arise, they know what steps to take. The river authorities would still have the right to be heard by the Ministry, if they objected to the steps that were proposed to be taken, and that would eliminate the need for consultation at a time of crisis. This is what we object to: that this Bill does not do that; it does nothing about it but merely refers to consultations when there is a crisis or when it is threatened. I feel that this must give rise to serious delay, and I would suggest that the Government have another thought about it. There will be an opportunity in another place, where I have no doubt that the matter will be raised. I feel quite certain that these words are not appropriate to the occasion, and certainly not to the speech which the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave made. If the noble Lord in reply says that this will be looked at again I shall be quite content.
  3.45 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think there is a genuine misunderstanding here, and I will see whether I can help the noble Lord, Lord Latham.
  LORD SILKIN: It may be that you are misunderstanding; do not assume that we are.
  LORD MANCROFT: It may well be. But I am at the moment assuming that it is the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who is misunderstanding. I cannot clear up my own misunderstanding; I am trying to clear up his. May I try to do so first by answering the two questions he asked me about the old procedure under the Defence Regulations, So far as I know, no procedure was laid down under the Defence Regulations, but in appropriate cases, where water undertakers told the Minister that they were likely to apply for an order, they were encouraged to consult anyone likely to be interested, including of course the river boards, before the situation became acute.
  LORD LATHAM: May I ask the noble Lord whether they were forbidden to make an application unless they had previously consulted?
  LORD MANCROFT: I think not, That being so, let us consider what is the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment. What he seeks to do is to provide that the statutory water undertakers should consult the river board at the time when an application for an order is made, instead of before making an application, as the Bill now stands. He has told us that the purpose of his Amendment, as we imagined it to be on reading it, is to meet the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made on Report stage when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol, 208, COL 700]:
  "…there may be serious hardship existing at the time when the application is being made … To suggest in those circumstances that, in addition to having to make the application, the water authority should have to embark on the process of consultation—which may be lengthy—is unrealistic."
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, went on to say, however, that he agreed that there should be informal discussion before the application was made—his objection, of course, was to making the discussion statutory. I suggest, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that his Amendment gets the worst of both worlds; it provides

  1187
  for consultation after the application has been made and when the very tight timetable laid down in the First Schedule has already begun to run. I think that this defeats the whole purpose of consultation.
  LORD LATHAM: My Amendment does not say, "after the application is made", but "at the same time"—con-currently.
  LORD MANCROFT: That is going to run straight away into the very tight procedure of the Schedule, and I cannot feel that that will lead to good administration; it will defeat the whole purpose of consultation which should be, I think, to secure that any application which is made is agreed between the water undertakers and the river board; or if, as may possibly happen, agreement cannot be reached, that both parties understand each other's point of view. I do not honestly think that there is any reason why 'the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, foresees should actually arise. When there is a spell of dry weather the water undertakers will be watching the rainfall, the level of the water in their reservoirs and the level of the river, and they should be able to foresee difficulties in time to carry out their discussions with the river board before the crisis is upon them.
  If the noble Lord, Lord Latham still has apprehensions or fears on this point, I will certainly give him an undertaking to include something in the explanatory circular on the Act pointing out the need for early consultation. The noble Lord may feel that the merit of his Amendment is that it puts an automatic time limit on the consultations. It does so, however, at the expense of starting the consultation when it is already too late to be of much use. My right honourable friend the Minister appreciates the point that consultation ought not to be allowed to hold up necessary action in a time of crisis (if there is to be a crisis), but there is no reason to fear that this will happen if the water undertakers begin their consultations in good time. In any case, the water undertakers are not required to reach agreement with the river board, and in the last resort—though one hopes that it will not come to that—they will be free to put in their application without the agreement
  1188
  of the river board and can leave the river board to make their objections to the Minister under the procedure set out in the First Schedule.
  I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment because I am afraid that I cannot accept it. Having listened very carefully to what the two noble Lords opposite have said, I will consult my right honourable friend, because we want this to be a measure on which there is agreement on all sides. The Bill has to go to another place, and though it would be discourteous in the extreme if I said that I would not consult my right honourable friend, I am afraid that at the moment, nothing noble Lords opposite have said convinces me that it would not be a bad thing to put those words in the Bill. I can therefore do no more than offer them an undertaking to put into the circular the explanatory words to which I have referred. Having said that, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot withdraw the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am sorry that we should have had that slight difference of opinion. I hope that now all will be light and sweetness, because the remaining Amendments are nearly all either consequential or drafting. This Amendment has been put down as the result of an undertaking which I gave on the Report stage. My noble friends Lord Waldegrave and Lord Conesford put down Amendments to add to the list of specific interests which the Minister would have to take into account when dealing with applications for orders. My Amendment removes any reference to specific interests and thereby removes any danger of the kind referred to in the discussion on the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, that interests not specifically mentioned might be disregarded. I hope that this Amendment will prove acceptable.
  Page 2, line 46, leave out from ("relates") to the end of line 47.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Interpretation]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendments that we made on the Report stage,

  1189
  and merely fulfils an undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, at that stage to provide for the application of these Amendments to Scotland. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
  ("and for any reference to a river board there shall be substituted a reference to a river purification authority and a fishery district board ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, on behalf of the water undertakers and river purification authorities of Scotland I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for fulfilling his undertaking.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule [Procedure for making orders]:
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 45 and insert—
  ("(b) If the order authorises the execution of works in, under or over a watercourse, the river board, and any other drainage authority within the meaning of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, within whose area the works, or any part of the works are situated.").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 9, after ("and") insert—
  ("(b) in one or more local newspapers circulating within the limits of supply").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave on the Report stage to my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford to look again at the provisions about the publication of notices in newspapers. This Amendment ensures that notices will be published in the area where it is proposed to take additional water, whether or not that area coincides with the area of shortage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 11, after ("and") insert—
  ("(c) where the application is for an order concerning the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water, in one or more local newspapers circulating within
  1190
  the area of every local authority within whose area the source or the site at which compensation water is to be discharged is situated.
  (3)").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg to thank my noble friend Lord Mancroft for making this Amendment, which meets the point I ventured to raise.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 12, after ("addition") insert ("to the notices specified in the last foregoing sub-paragraph ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 31.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that the privilege Amendments be agreed to.
  Moved, that the privilege Amendments be agreed to.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  3.56 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I now rise to move that the Bill do now pass. I must first apologise for the number of Amendments which appeared on the Marshalled List at Third Reading. We were, however, particularly anxious that the Bill should be in as clear a form as possible before it was referred to another place. I must therefore thank your Lordships very much for your patience and skilful co-operation. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lords, Lord Latham and Lord Silkin, and I hope they will not reprove me for not having accepted the Amendments which they put forward and debated with such care. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin rightly pointed out, there is no Party influence at all upon this Bill. I have considered and have sought advice on their Amendments, and the points which they and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, made, in an entirely non-Party spirit and upon their merits. I hope that I have not done them any disservice by not being able to be a little more forthcoming.

  1191
  The Bill now goes to another place, and we shall see how it fares there. At least we can say that we have done our best to make it a tidy and useful measure. It is, I hope, a measure that will never be used. If only we could so regulate our weather that this was not necessary how glad we should be! We have taken in the Bill a necessary step. We have done away with one or two Defence Regulations—which we always like to do—and have taken out an insurance policy against misfortune in the future. I thank your Lordships for your help in doing so. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will agree with me that water is an appropriate subject on which to be temperate.
  EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Man-croft, has said, that this Bill will seldom be used. That, I am sure, is the wish of the water industry. I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the great care he has given to the Amendments that have been put forward at various stages as this Bill has gone through the House, and I sincerely believe that the Amendments which I had the honour to move and which the noble Lord accepted have improved the Bill. I was only extremely sorry to notice earlier—though I must not refer to it because presumably I must not speak twice upon it—that there still appears to be some misunderstanding. However, I must leave that aspect for the moment. I hope that the Amendments which I moved in the interests of the river boards and which were accepted by Her Majesty's Government were in no sense contrary to the interests of the water industry and the water undertakers, because this Bill is a Bill of emergency measures to deal with water, and it would have been quite wrong if any sectional interests had hindered its main purpose. I beg to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the way in which he has dealt with these Amendments, which improve the Bill.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Waldegrave in paying a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. This legis
  1192
  lation is for an emergency, and one of the troubles about emergencies is that people get excited and tend to act violently. When the Bill first came to your Lordships' House I think that the violent side was perhaps the more emphasised. I consider that the Amendments which have been accepted by Her Majesty's Government have done more to harmonise the various parties that will have to co-operate in an emergency than anything else could do, and I believe that the Bill has been very much improved in your Lordships' House. That, I consider, is very largely due to the candid way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has met the various arguments.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may we hope to reach an end of this one-sided controversy?
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  4.2 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  CHRISTMAS ISLAND BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  ALL HALLOWS THE GREAT CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  ALL HALLOWS THE LESS CHURCHYARD BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.