WATER BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 1 May 1958)

HL Deb 01 May 1958 vol 208 cc1180-92 1180

§ 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 3^a.—(Lord Mancroft.)

§ On Question, Bill read 3^a.

§ 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 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.

1186

§ 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.)